Question about logic

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 03:59am

I'm in a debate with someone else on another board, and he is stating that a certain character has an ability which can block attacks from omnipotent beings.

Of course I said that is impossible, and the beings it blocks must not be truly omnipotent.

However he says that the writer had explicitly said that the God in that universe was omnipotent, and that the character in question had an ability that could block omnipotent attacks.

What would be the correct answer here?

Should a logical impossibility be allowed because it is explicitly defined as being allowed by the writer?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-06-02 04:03am

I believe that in situations like this, writer's intent doesn't hold up compared to in universe observations.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 04:05am

Well the in - universe observation is that the character can block omnipotent attacks, because it is directly stated in - universe. However, it's logically impossible.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 04:26am

OmegaGuy wrote:Well the in - universe observation is that the character can block omnipotent attacks, because it is directly stated in - universe. However, it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible, but it's observed. Observation > random claims by the author. The observation is something that very clearly happens, even if omnipotence is stated by the author.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 04:41am

So what does that mean?

Does it mean that it can do what it says it can, or that it can't?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 04:48am

OmegaGuy wrote:So what does that mean?

Does it mean that it can do what it says it can, or that it can't?

If he's observed blocking an attack from an omnipotent being, then that means he can do so, even if it's a logical contradiction.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 04:53am

Really?

Huh.

I would have thought it would mean that the 'omnipotent' being wasn't truly omnipotent.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 05:02am

OmegaGuy wrote:Really?

Huh.

I would have thought it would mean that the 'omnipotent' being wasn't truly omnipotent.

It probably actually means the writer is a shitty writer, if he claims that it's omnipotent and also has a clear example of the being not being omnipotent.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:08am

Yeah, I already knew that, but how would it be handled in a debate?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 05:10am

Bah... sorry... I'm being a dumbass. I thought the question pertained only to that universe...

The observation reveals that the God in that universe isn't omnipotent, because he's actively contradicted, and a being that truly is capable of anything is also capable of overcoming any bariers against him, so his claim that the God in the book is omnipotent is wrong.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:20am

And that means a true omnipotent being from a different universe would be able to do what that universe's God couldn't do, right?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 05:26am

OmegaGuy wrote:And that means a true omnipotent being from a different universe would be able to do what that universe's God couldn't do, right?

Well, yes, but that doesn't necessarily apply to all situations. It might just apply to the situation with this one fellow's ability to repel omnipotent attacks. But it's up to your oponent to justify the god's power, because you've already shown that the god can't be omnipotent by virtue of being contradicted, no matter what the author said.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:29am

His only justification is that it is stated in - universe that the god is omnipotent.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 05:31am

OmegaGuy wrote:His only justification is that it is stated in - universe that the god is omnipotent.

Like I said above, observation trumps the claims by the author. The God is observed being contradicted, and omnipotent beings by definition can't be contradicted, so both he and the author are wrong about the God being omnipotent.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:32am

That's what I said, but he still insists I'm wrong.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-02 05:33am

OmegaGuy wrote:That's what I said, but he still insists I'm wrong.

Then he's an idiot. No use debating him if he doesn't accept reason. What reasons does he give that you're wrong?

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:37am

He says that "If it's stated directly in - universe, then it's right, and since you're not the writer, you can't say it's wrong."

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-06-02 05:40am

I think a thread came up like this once before with Freddy Krueger. In someone's dream, Freddy is basically written as one big No Limits fallacy. You can't 'outdream' him, because he is supposed to sort of own the dream world. Nobody can dream up something bigger than he can deal with (ultimately), so yes, that's a No Limits fallacy, but that's also the story.

Anyway, I guess you can't really debate using some character like that because he doesn't follow logical rules.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 05:46am

Just so people know, the character I'm talking about is a guy called Dark Schneider.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-02 07:17am

True omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory; therefore, the author is incorrect. If you really want to give him his omnipotence, though, never mind the contradictions, then you could perhaps have the godlike being holding back; after all, it is a "power" to modulate your attacks.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-06-02 08:09am

OmegaGuy wrote:He says that "If it's stated directly in - universe, then it's right, and since you're not the writer, you can't say it's wrong."

You can if its not logically consistent.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-06-02 09:15am

Surlethe wrote:True omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory; therefore, the author is incorrect. If you really want to give him his omnipotence, though, never mind the contradictions, then you could perhaps have the godlike being holding back; after all, it is a "power" to modulate your attacks.

That won't work here, this supposedly 'omnipotent' god actually fears Dark Schneider because he can't destroy him.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-02 09:29am

OmegaGuy wrote:
Surlethe wrote:True omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory; therefore, the author is incorrect. If you really want to give him his omnipotence, though, never mind the contradictions, then you could perhaps have the godlike being holding back; after all, it is a "power" to modulate your attacks.
That won't work here, this supposedly 'omnipotent' god actually fears Dark Schneider because he can't destroy him.

Then he's not omnipotent. It's as simple as that; all you have to do is reason by contradiction as follows:

Suppose this god is omnipotent.
Then, given any ability, he possesses it.
The ability to destroy Dark Schneider is an ability.
Therefore, this god possesses it.
However, it is not the case this god possesses that power.
We have reached a contradiction; our initial assumption must be incorrect.

If the guy you're debating denies this, then you should accept that as a tacit concession, and walk away; there's really no point to wasting your time unless you're doing it for your own amusement. The other alternative is mercilessly mocking him; that works too, sometimes.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-06-02 11:08am

There is one problem -- the scope of the author's statement that God is omnipotent. That is, God may be omnipotent in respect to everything but Dark Schneider. Is there an exact quote, with context? It could be that he was excluded elsewhere in the conversation.

Alternatively, if the statement was given by the narrator of the book, then it is pretty clear that this narrator is a fallible narrator. This is not a very common literary device, but common enough that it should be taken into account.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-06-02 11:47am

Yet another obvious problem with scope is that just because a being is omnipotent does not mean every action performed by that being must be ineludible and undefeatable. In fact, an omnipotent being must be capable of less than overwhelming attacks in order to be truly omnipotent in the first place. Whether or not this was the case here would be dependent on the context of this event (and of course the trustworthiness of the narrator).