But what's the problem use him as Rank 9 cameo and finish the WMW with clear ending? I didn't see any reason for that, that's all. There will be no diffrence even if he
The Universe that Leylin came to control was not the same one that his Soul originally came from. At Rank 9 he became the most powerful being in his Universe but there was another Rank 9 being in control of The Original Universe he came from. Leaving him room to grow expands the universe. Simple as that. There is a difference. If it ended at Rank 9 then Leylin would forever remain in his Universe because it is the only place that he is truly eternal. This Open ending allows him to become powerful enough to truly become unimpeded as he travels amognst the other universes. imo. There is a difference between a clear ending and an open ending. WMW had a clear ending. Everything was wrapped up but he left it so that Leylin would be able to continue growing. He doesn't have to show us that and create an ending that left absolute no questions or a future for it. He made an open ending saying that Leylins journey continues on. There is nothing wrong with that. It all comes down to taste, you seem to dislike open endings from everything you have said. WMW having an open ending doesn't make it bad, you dislike it because you want everything to be in a bow with nothing left open. That's subjective taste not an objective view of its quality.
We have seen people have eternal youth as early as rank 2. granted it was very unusual for rank 2, and came with cost (temporary losing his power and having to cultivate it again, although it could be done relatively quickly). People have been able to make a weaker clone and come back from it in case of death from that level too. I am pretty sure beings of laws are truly ageless, and are even more heaven defying with their ability to come back to life. The main pursuit of immortality that the MC was going after was not "agelessness", but actually "impossible to kill". Every rank 7 being might be ageless, but can be murdered. But being an omnipotent being of law like the MC finally becomes makes him actually unkillable.
Your premise is a fallacy. Why should an omnipotent being able to create something so heavy that he is unable to lift it? That's a contradiction and negation of his omnipotence, a logical fallacy. Omnipotent doesn't mean capable of the impossible. That would include contradictions and paradoxes. Like cold heat and hot cold, or round triangle and angular circle, or a child who gives birth to her parents. Omnipotent means capable of all infinite possible. Omnipotent means there is only one Omnipotent being. If there are more than one Omnipotent beings, then one would be weaker and the other would be stronger, in this case there is only one omnipotent. Or they're all draw then no one is omnipotent. To be omnipotent, the Omnipotent himself must be an infinite and absolute being. He must be capable to create infinite amounts of universes without losing any potency. It's a definition of a true absolute Creator God. All Chinese novel MC's fall short of that. It's logical impossible for created relative and finite beings to become infinite and absolute. So no omnipotent MC. The concept of an omnipotent MC itself is a logical fallacy. What has how a toddler sees his parents to do with omnipotence, that's ridiculous. For a something to exist there must be an eternal and infinite origin. From nothing comes nothing. From something comes something. Yet there must be an eternal and infinite origin, if not, you would have an infinite regress in the past and that's the same as something from nothing without beginning which is ridiculous. Without an eternal and infinite origin there is no logical way for anything to exist. Unless you believe in miracles that something pops out of nothing, only just then, and only in your imagination. Chinese Novels has some of the most ridiculous logic, or the absence of it, I have ever read. What? As a rank 9 leylin is truly eternal in his universe but not so truly eternal in other universes. But as a rank 10 he is truly truly eternal in the multiverse but not so truly truly eternal in other multiverses. As a rank 11... Learn the meaning of true!
There is no fallacy here. An omnipotent being is "all powerful", they can lift anything. If they create an object they cannot lift then what they are actually doing is "giving up their omnipotence". Nothing about being omnipotent prevents you from using your power on yourself to give up your omnipotence by creating limitations for yourself. Once you create such limits, you become near-omnipotent. From being able to do anything, to "being able to do anything except lift this one magical object"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox Apologies. Paradox. My premise is not a fallacy. I just mixed up the word with Paradox. The situation is recognized and therefore the is a Paradox around omnipotence. I didn't get the whole heavy rock example from my ass. Whew! That one went over your head. It was used to highlight how perspective has alot to do with peoples misuse of the word and improper categorization of certain theological individuals or otherwise. That's why I used it, but I suppose it wasn't as on the nose for you as when I actually used the Christian God as an example. Though I said initially it was about perspective so I've no idea how you think my example has nothing to do with it. A toddlers worldview is so tiny and their parents role in it is so vast in it that they should view them as the strongest people out there. Someone who shelters them from all thing. From a toddler very limited view their parents should seem all powerful. I've had cousins who when they were super young be very surprised and confused when they were told their parents couldn't do certain things that they assumed they could just because of their limited worldview. As your being so nitpicky my reaction to it may seem... rude. I apologize if so. I'm on my tablet and I'm not going to edit this so I don't sound like an ass. Its accidental if I do. I'd just rather go hiking than edit this further. As for the rest of your post. I'm not having a philosophical debate with you. I mixed up two words but still gave a valid example of a Paradox and examples to highlight the misuse of the word. At no point did I get philosophical and I'm not going to start now. I'm not debating how all things have come to be and my post never even leaned in that direction aside from mention the Christian god. Chines novels have crazy logic? What's new? I was only using what the novel stated. And it hasn't stated there is a Rank 11 so your assumption there is is baseless. Perhaps other novels leave a level that high but from everything WMW has told us Rank 10 is the top. Smarter people than me actually came up with the Paradox. Just read the link.
Thats not really how omnipotence works. Omnipotence is the ability to do ANYTHING at all. Does it create a paradox in our mind if someone omnipotent creates something they themselves couldn't lift? Sure. But being omnipotent means they can also lift it. It doesn't need to make sense. Omnipotence doesn't work with our ideas of reality. It doesn't have to. It just is.
By that line of thinking it is a word we should never use because we lack any real enough perception of reality to even begin grasping it. Which I agree with. But there are different levels of omnipotence people have created. That link outlines them well. But I agree. The can do anything thinkable definition is the one I usually ascribe to it.
Easy bro, you didn't offend me, and it's not my intention to offend you. A link to wiki doesn't refute me in anyway and that it is recognized by others doesn't make it right, and you didn't deal with any of my arguments. I refuted the omnipotence paradox and showed that it's not a paradox but a forced paradox generated through your false premise. An omnipotent being is able to lift an infinite heavy weight. There is nothing more heavier than an infinite heavy weight. But an omnipotent being will lift it with ease instantly and if he will destroy it instantly. So which weight heavier than infinite should or could he create? It's impossible. Your argument imposes him with weakness and an impossible task and then you go along and say 'he's weak' and therefore not omnipotent. That's ridiculous. So, there is no paradox. Perspective in many ways is important as it relativise and defuse our viewpoint but it is extraneous to the matter and misused. If used right, it shows us that omnipotence means that even generating infinite multiverses is just a small matter because we can't think anything bigger with our limited rationality. So an omnipotent being with infinite wisdom (omniscient) will use his omnipotent powers in such kind and manner, that it becomes inconceivable to us. A fitting Quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Edit: To make an even better example, an omnipotent being can create an infinite amount of infinite heavy weights, and he will lift them all at the same time with ease. And if he wants he can create an infinite set of an infinite set of an infinite set... ad infinitum... of infinite heavy weights. And he will lift them all with no effort at all.
Cool. I was rushed and didn't edit so I wasn't sure. The link explains the Paradox in far more detail than I dared to in a post, and more clearly. Did you read it or are just saying a link doesn't refute you? There is a greater number than infinity. It is very easy to ascribe a value to infinity actually. My arguement doesn't give him weakness, it states two things that he should be able to do and they conflict with eachother. But here is the same concept in a way you cant apply infinity to despite how it still doesn't resolve the Paradox. An omnipotent being can create a Sword that cannot be blocked and break through anything. An omnipotent being can create a shield that is indestructible and can block anything. Both statements should be possible and true for a being of limitless power and ability. So which wins? The Sword or the Shield. The problem is that for omnipotence in the sense that I am describing it and I think you are too, both statements cannot be true. Because this is why the highest level of omnipotence (read the link, it describes the different common levels) just cant work. That quote of your doesn't really apply but I do love it and see what your going for. Again, omnipotence in the sense that this being can do anything is not possible. There are restrictions why it's a paradox. You assertion is correct. You are saying that he can create a mass of infinite weight and he can also lift a mass of infinite weight. Cool. Using that does not break omnipotence or enact the Paradox. But just because that doesn't does not mean that you get to disregard the ones that do. The assertion for a being who can make anything possible is that he can create a weight that he cannot lift. If he is capable of doing anything with his power then he can create a weight he cannot lift. The problem is that the other assertion is that he can lift anything. They do not jive and that is the problem. Here is what I tried to say just worded better. Contents OverviewEdit A common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the question: "Can [an omnipotent being] create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" This question generates a dilemma. The being can either create a stone it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone it cannot lift. If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then it seems that it can cease to be omnipotent. If the being cannot create a stone it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent.[4]
You said: "The assertion for a being who can make anything possible is that he can create a weight that he cannot lift." This is false, because it is logical impossible, and this false premise is the paradox and not the omnipotence. He can't create a weight that he cannot lift because it contradicts his omnipotence. And the fact that he cannot create a paradox makes him not less omnipotent. It's not a criterion and cannot be a criterion. The logical impossibility can never be a criterion. The criterion is that he can create the limitless heaviest possible weight and lift it. It is impossible to create something heavier. Like its impossible to create angular circles, round triangle, a child who gives birth to her parents, a hot cold, a cold hot etc. These things are logical impossible. To claim that these logical impossibilities arte true is ridiculous and can never be true and it is more ridiculous to demand these logical impossibilities, they are false and not real. Logical impossibilities can never be a criterion for truth. (Like 1=5; 4=55; 3+3=400 etc.) You could also generate another ridiculous case. If you're omnipotent you can kill yourself. If you can't kill yourself you aren't omnipotent. This also contradicts the omnipotency. It's not only pointless and futile, it's a logical fallacy to attempt to kill yourself, because if you proof your omnipotence and kill yourself, you're no longer omnipotent. These examples are wordplay and voidsemantics. Because you demand illusionary things that are not real and which undermine what is real. You can't mix false and true together. To your example with the sword and shield, above I wrote: "Omnipotent means there is only one Omnipotent being. If there are more than one Omnipotent beings, then one would be weaker and the other would be stronger, in this case there is only one omnipotent. Or they're all draw then no one is omnipotent." That means there is either the sword or the shield which is unbeatable, or they draw. That both are unbeatable is logical impossible and don't change or lessen the omnipotence of the omnipotent being.
A being of infinite power who can do anything thinkable, should be able to follow up any claim or test of his ability. Including arguments that in act the Paradox. Your arguement of me not being able to say that is just a convenience to keep the illusion intact. If I ask a god that can do anything to do something he should be able to do it, including the creation of something he cannot lift which invalidates the idea that he is omnipotent. This is the Paradox. My question must be addressed since he can do anything and the answer to that question in either form invalidates the omnipotence claim. You don't get to change the question like you are, that isn't how it works. The question must be answered not changed. And there are only 2 answer, he can or he can't. Both in act the Paradox. Yes I can generate any ridiculous case I want for a being who can do anything I can pose to it in a sentence. That's the problem you are side stepping. If you put a limit on his infinite power or added conditions to it ( Really read the link I posted, it explains all this. With your continued posts I can't help but think you haven't even looked and if so you read a small portion) then my arguments become answerable. But with no limits or conditions this being is capable of anything, including invalidating his own omnipotence. You took the wrong train on my claim but got close. If one exists it means the other is impossible to create. But again, the claim must be answered and a being of infinite potential can create both items with the condition put forward. This is the problem. They both invalidate themselves but this being can create both. By creating both neither fills out it intended function and thus they have both failed. Enter the Paradox. It's irrelevant which wins, the fact that I can have him create 2 objects like this invalidates his omnipotence immediately. Because he can't create the item and have it follow it's intended effects does lessen the omnipotence of an omnipotent being. You can do everything. Your omnipotent. You can do everything but some stuff. Not omnipotent. Also if you are going to actually quote me... quote me. I can't find where I said "the assertion for...." We have very convenient tools here to help that. It prevents miss quoting and makes it easy to find where said quotes came from. Edit: found it! Still properly quote next time though. Taking that out of context though. Read it in context. But here I'll edit it for you. Damn tablet makes this hard. The assertion is a being that can make anything possible. The challenge that he should be able to do is create an object he can't lift. Damn I wish I had a keyboard. I'd be so much more eloquent.
Ugh, I wish I knew. I've been waiting for it to get a few more chapters and increase its rate until I dive in. I've heard good things but I don't know if it's a titan of its genre or something. Have you read Demon Hunter and Godsfall yet?
No, I havent read it yet, Im occupied with the VR novels (thief rebirth, legendary guardian, swordmaster rebirth, frankly its just the same clothe but with different colors, reborn into younger self, remembering quest and item location, establishing guild and offending bigger guilds), as for city of sin, the reviews are not united so im afraid to check it
I am well aware that you are not the one who invented this idea. I asked the same question when I was 10 years old and am well aware that many others have asked it too... however, that doesn't make the question right. That specific issue is simply not a paradox for the exact reasons I described. And ANYTHING just happens to include "transform self from omnipotent to near-omnipotent" Now, the CORRECT question to ask if you are trying to create this paradox would be "can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he can't lift in a manner that chooses to retain his own omnipotence". At which point what you are really saying is "take any paradox that has ever been imagined, if an omnipotent who can do anything does paradox then they paradoxically can't, because paradox". The solution to that is either to say that the definition of omnipotence is actually "do any non paradoxical thing"... or "sure he can create a rock that even he can't lift... and then he can lift it... because omnipotence" (think multiple simultaneous states, like quantum physics). Alternatively, create a rock he can't lift... but leave himself the ability to transform the rock to be liftable. These so called "smart people" are all asking the wrong question because they are not putting in enough qualifiers like "without giving up omnipotence and without creating a paradox"; they are failing in their intent to entrap religious people in the definition of omnipotence. Whole thing is a pedantic thought exercise anyways because god doesn't exist and because it relies on people specifically defining omnipotence as "can do anything, including self contradictory things" and then disproving it. when it's clearly not what the ignorant god pushers actually mean when they say "god can do anything". making it a strawman.
You do know that City of Sin is not by the same author as WMW, right? The only other series by "the plagiarist" on NU is "Carefree path of dreams".
This place is still quite alive eh. From what I heard carfree is the 3rd novel and it occurs in the same universe as the authors 1st and 2nd