omnipotence

Whenever the omnipotence and/or moral authority of the bureaucracy is challenged the media rushes to its defense.

Knowing whether or not an idea is stupid really requires a sort of omnipotence on your part.

It's a worthwhile debate if omnipotence exists, but it doesn't, so the argument is moot.

The reason is because omnipotence is a logically inconsistent concept, and is thus impossible.

Omniscience without omnipotence is tolerable, as is omnipotence without omniscience.

And...the corporation today could be easily compared in its breadth and omnipotence to the church of the 16th century.

This kind of thing puts a smile on my face, because it breaks the omnipotence of one company in the industry.

I would love to invent my own universes, simulate them, and be able to watch and manipulate them with omnipotence.

Meanwhile back in reality, omnipotence is not an assumption you can make.

This is both a straw man (OP asked for limited help, not omnipotence), and predicting the future by drawing a line from the past.

Expectations for IT's omnipotence soared in the mid- to late 1990s.

It's just assumed that intelligence = omnipotence, which is basically theology.

Omniscience and omnipotence (generally ascribed to God by mainstream Christianity) give concepts like "fair" the equivalent of a divide by zero.

In that case, "hyperintelligence" is equivalent to saying "omnipotence" in this regard, and as such we can easily dismiss it as an option.

Omniscience and omnipotence by states and corporations lead by very human, sometimes sick people, may make the world "safer" from small fish (and even that is not clear), but might also make powerful sadists untouchable.