Jezer

This user has not updated recently.

3408 0 19 59
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Jezer's forum posts

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Jezer

Yes, a true(aka super) omnipotent being would. It has the potential, but it has to excercise it.
  
At the same time, a true omnscient being could do the same.
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Jezer
@napoleon said:
" @Jezer said:

" @Tonystarkbuttherapper said:

"^^^^ and that's why philosophy majors are broke as hell"
Not a philosophy major, as of now. English and Psych major.   Though, I'm a college student.... so still broke as hell =( "
@Jezer:@Jezer said:

" It all depends on whether you're talking about "omnipotence" and "omniscience", or what some no-name philosopher termed "superomnipotence", and I guess "superomniscience" in relation to that attribute.  See, most people actually restrict omnipotence, and omniscience as well, to logical limits. So, an omnipotent being can't make a square-circle because of the logical contradiction of those two concepts being either one or the other. And it can't make a rock it can't lift because then it wouldn't be omnipotent, and then it can't make that rock, and thus it isn't omnipotent--you get the idea.  In that same sense, an omniscient being can't know something that's doesn't exist, or is not knowable. For example, it won't know that Obama isn't president, because Obama is president.  It won't know 2 + 2 equals 5 because 2 + 2 equals 4.   However, a superomnipotent being would be one able to do literally anything, and thus not limited by logic. It can be contradictions. It can make 2 + 2 = 5 and make a rock that it can't lift, while being able to lift it at the same time. It basically transcends logic, cateogories, ect.  With that in mind, a super-omniscient being would be the same. It would know how to do the impossible, and thus be able to do the impossible. It would know that 2+2=5, and know how to make 2+2=5 within its restricted/limited(because its not omnipotent) abilities.  BASICALLY, if we're talking true superomnipotence and superomniscience, this is a tie. Because a superomniscience being would know how to beat a superomnipotent being, without even being omnipotent, - even though that's not logically possible. It would know how it can survive a blast that can destroy anything, within its own powers and attributes.Same way that the superomnipotent being would be able to be beat, and yet win, at the same time. Dead and alive, at the same time. And so, both would win and both would tie.  HOWEVER, if you're talking the traditional omnipotence that people use since it doesn't fuck up the human's rational/logical mind, then the Omnipotent being would win, because the Omniscient being wouldn't know how to win, since that possbility doesn't exist, and it doesn't know stuff that isn't true/doesn't exist. "

your philosofy really doesnt work. there shouldn't be a distiction between omnipotence and superomnipotence or omniscence and super omniscence. the word already has the meaning of the other word.  an omnipotent being would be super omnipotent, because he is an infinate being of infinate power and nothing transends infinately. the term "super" was only coined to make a distinaction between doing everything that is scientificaly possible, and doing things that are not. a true omnpotent would would make a mountain he SHOULD'NT LIFT, because he has desianed time in such a way that if he moves that mountain it messes with the future he has desined. an omnpotent being would be all 3 omni's at once because he is IN everything and every time he created, but seprete, the saying that omnipotence cant exist because it warnets that the being would have to break logic. (sqare circle) is only based on our concept of logic which changes every few decades when a discovy is found. If the character is truly omnipotent then he would of in his infinate wisdom have given the omniscent being his power, but because he transends logic he can not be fully known even to the all wise. and omniscent being would be able to see all possible and true futures, an omnipotent being would be able to bend all true and possible futures. just because he knows all doesn't mean he can beat a man that created and is all. an omnipotent beingsd power can not be stolen or waned, he is weak because he is in all creation but strong because he is infinate, he is weak because he is subservent to himself and his whims, but more powerfull than ever imagined. only an omnipotent can give the nessaRY POWER TO AN OMNISCENT FOR HIMSELF O BE BEATEN, and if he does it is because it is nessacary to HIS plan. but an omniscent CANT DO EVERYTHING ON HIS OWN POWER JUST BECAUSE HE KNOWS ALL. as i said you cant make a nuke with a pizza box "

It's not my philosophy.  
 
And, there is a distinction specifically because, as I already said, most people see omnipotent with logical limits. 
That's why some may argue that an omnipotent entity is still omnipotent, even though it either: can't make a rock it can't lift OR can't lift that rock. 
 Some see omnipotence as able to do anything that's logically possible. 
  
On the otherhand, the true omnipotence (superomnipotence) is one that can literally do anything.
  
"to make a distinaction between doing everything that is scientificaly possible, and doing things that are not." 
Not scientifically possible, but "logically" possible. If that's what you mean, you just said the exact same thing as me. 
  
" an omnpotent being would be all 3 omni's at once because he is IN everything and every time he created, " 
Incorrect. Omnipotent being would be able to become all 3 omnis, if he wanted, but he has to choose to do so. It's not default. 
Most see omnipotent as "able to do anything", meaning the person has the potential to do anything, but has to actually make it happen. 
 
"the saying that omnipotence cant exist because it warnets that the being would have to break logic. (sqare circle) is only based on our concept of logic which changes every few decades when a discovy is found." 
Wrong. Logic doesn't change based on scientific discoveries, our knowledge does. Basic logic is the same. Something can't exist if it's logically inconsistent. A square is the concept of a square. A circle is the concept of a circle. You can't have a concept that is both at the same time, because then its not either, and thus its not both. 
 
The rest of your post is either contradictory to stuff you previously said, or gibberish.
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Jezer
@Tonystarkbuttherapper said:
"^^^^ and that's why philosophy majors are broke as hell"

Not a philosophy major, as of now. English and Psych major.  
 
Though, I'm a college student.... so still broke as hell =(
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Jezer

It all depends on whether you're talking about "omnipotence" and "omniscience", 
or what some no-name philosopher termed "superomnipotence", and I guess "superomniscience" in relation to that attribute. 
 
See, most people actually restrict omnipotence, and omniscience as well, to logical limits. 
So, an omnipotent being can't make a square-circle because of the logical contradiction of those two concepts being either one or the other. 
And it can't make a rock it can't lift because then it wouldn't be omnipotent, and then it can't make that rock, and thus it isn't omnipotent--you get the idea. 
 
In that same sense, an omniscient being can't know something that's doesn't exist, or is not knowable. For example, it won't know that Obama isn't president, because Obama is president.  
It won't know 2 + 2 equals 5 because 2 + 2 equals 4.  
 
However, a superomnipotent being would be one able to do literally anything, and thus not limited by logic. It can be contradictions. It can make 2 + 2 = 5 and make a rock that it can't lift, while being able to lift it at the same time. It basically transcends logic, cateogories, ect. 
 With that in mind, a super-omniscient being would be the same. It would know how to do the impossible, and thus be able to do the impossible. It would know that 2+2=5, and know how to make 2+2=5 within its restricted/limited(because its not omnipotent) abilities. 
 
BASICALLY, if we're talking true superomnipotence and superomniscience, this is a tie. 
Because a superomniscience being would know how to beat a superomnipotent being, without even being omnipotent, - even though that's not logically possible. It would know how it can survive a blast that can destroy anything, within its own powers and attributes.
Same way that the superomnipotent being would be able to be beat, and yet win, at the same time. Dead and alive, at the same time. And so, both would win and both would tie. 
 
HOWEVER, if you're talking the traditional omnipotence that people use since it doesn't fuck up the human's rational/logical mind, then the Omnipotent being would win, because the Omniscient being wouldn't know how to win, since that possbility doesn't exist, and it doesn't know stuff that isn't true/doesn't exist.
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Jezer

I don't know anything about "Lich King", except the fact that some people think he can win due to summoning things? 
 
Do you know Kratos can also summon monsters?
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Jezer

Together, Peter and Sylar are way to versatile for Magneto and Wolverine to handle. 
 
Way too many powers, with different uses.  
 
I mean, if Wolverine tries to attack Peter, he could phase through him. Sylar could stop him with Telekinesis. They both have a healing factor. 
Sylar has intuitive aptitude, so if Peter chose to take that power, he would be able to have advanced control over Magneto's power. 
Using superspeed, Peter could dodge anything Magneto or Wolverine could try to do. 
 
Despite all this, Peter could finish this in less than a second by stopping time. 
 
Why exactly is this debate still going on?
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Jezer
@darkrein said:
"Huh. so this is what cthulhu looks like. It sort of tickles. "

lmao
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Jezer

That was an allusion with a hidden meaning.
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Jezer
@NickA_94 said:
"Super Spite Jason hasn't done anything that would put him on par with a low ranking Hand Ninja let alone Daredevil "

That's not an actual legit reason to say that Daredevil can beat him. 
 
Jason has an insane amount of durability...powerful blows or precise blows aren't going to put him down. 
There's really nothing Daredevil can do that can put him down. Nerve strikes? Jason's pretty much a zombie, it won't do anything. Beating him with clubs? He'll shrug it off like nothing. 
 
All of this has been said before - Daredevil's skill and ability doesn't matter if his attacks are like flies to Jason.
Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Jezer

I nominate Seth Petruzelli.