Linus279

this makes no sense other than trying to sound clever and different.

Actually, look at what you just conceded without realizing it. You argued that the three attributes are inseparable — that one cannot exist without the other two. Fine. But then why are you still arguing that omniscience *leads to* omnipotence? If they are truly inseparable, you are implicitly admitting that omniscience **alone** is not enough — you need the potency on top of it. You just made my argument for me. And now the only move left you is to claim they are simply interchangeable — that omniscience and omnipotence are just two words for the same thing. But that is not a defense of your position, that is a retreat from it. You started by arguing omniscience *produces* omnipotence. Now you are arguing they are *identical*. Those are completely different claims, and you switched between them the moment the first one failed. If they were truly identical, every language, every theologian, every philosopher across thousands of years would have used one word. They didn't. Because they describe genuinely different things — knowing and doing — which even a child understands are not the same. You have gone from "omniscience gives you omnipotence" to "they're basically the same thing anyway." That is not a counter-argument. That is a concession dressed up as a reframe.

But here's something worth sitting with before anything else: theologians and philosophers have been debating God's nature for literally thousands of years. In all that time, they landed on **three separate attributes** — Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence. Three distinct words. Three separate concepts requiring three separate philosophical defenses, from Aquinas to Plantinga to Swinburne. If knowing everything automatically meant you could do everything, those thinkers wouldn't have needed to define Omnipotence separately. The fact that the word exists independently, and has required its own independent justification throughout the entire history of philosophy, is itself evidence that nobody — not even the people most motivated to connect these attributes — considered them the same thing. And that's before we get to the human case. Your omniscient human still has human biology. They cannot survive a supernova, stop a bullet with their chest, or conjure resources into existence. Knowing *exactly* how to build anything doesn't mean it exists yet. You still need time, materials, and physical steps. Omnipotence means *any* logically possible state of affairs, *right now*, with no steps required. "Eventually unstoppable given enough time" is not that. You're redefining omnipotence downward — and the fact that it has its own separate definition proves you can't.

Let’s look at what you are actually saying here, because every time you try to defend your point, you keep accidentally proving mine. This entire debate is about the fundamental difference between **Omniscience (knowledge)** and **Omnipotence (potency)**. My standpoint from the very beginning has been that knowledge alone does nothing; you still need potency. Your entire argument relies on the idea that an omniscient being can find a loophole, a shortcut, or an incredibly easy method—like the movement of an ant—to cause massive destruction or gain absolute power. But ask yourself this: Why are you looking for an 'extremely easy' way? Why does the method need to be something 'an ant is capable of'? You are doing this because you subconsciously realize that without **Potency**, the being cannot do anything. By trying to find the absolute *minimum* amount of force required, you are openly admitting that **force is still required**. Even if the method only requires a tiny twitch, a whisper, or a single neuron firing—that twitch, that whisper, and that neuron firing are all exercises of **Potency**. If a being has *pure omniscience* and absolutely *zero potency*, it cannot even produce that tiny ant-sized spark to start the chain reaction. This is the trap of your own logic: **If you do not secretly give this omniscient being the potency to act, then nothing happens.** And the moment you give it the potency to execute that 'easy way,' you are admitting that you needed potency all along. You are literally proving my point for me.

You are right that an Omnipotent being can easily become Omniscient (by creating knowledge). But it does not work the other way around. Knowledge without the capacity to act is just data. You are mixing up having the blueprint (Omniscience) with having the tools and strength to build it (Omnipotence). They are linked in the concept of God, but logically, they are completely separate.

By saying they can make it happen without doing anything, you aren't describing someone who knows everything—you are describing someone who has the reality-bending power to do the impossible. That is Omnipotence, not Omniscience.

No one in DxD cosmology is Close to types

Demon Slayer should be in this list. Probably the best Verse If you want to gain Speed and strength Natural.