Lucifer, Dream, and Michael downgrade

[Transcending]

Also even if Deagon was somehow right here, the thread can't be closed since his reasonings are complete different from the current justifications.

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

It was directly stated that Perpetua was supposed to die and let her energy return to the Source. If her death causes her energy to return to the Source, that means her life energy comes from the Source.

The Supercelestials work for the Source. They abide by its will and judgment. It gives them the materials and energy needed to make multiverses and then they're supposed to die. None of this makes any sense in the context of a race of beings who "created themselves" and who are more powerful than the Source.

This is bad faith arguing because it's so painfully obvious that it shouldn't even require a discussion. And I am refusing to deal with it because every single obvious thing is turning into a pointless argument by someone who refuses to admit when they're clearly wrong.



We gave proof that the Source Wall was part of the Presence's creation and that the entire multiversity map is recorded in Destiny's book which covers the Presence's creation.

Instead of accepting the evidence, you pretended we are in some bizarro universe where there's a "true" Source Wall and I need to prove "the Source Wall" is the Source Wall.

It's tedious nonsense that is barely worth acknowledging.



The fact that you still think naming fallacies you read on Wikipedia is a good way to argue is really silly.

I think the scan just says the energies she used to create the multiverse would return to the Source after she died. That's probably what "her energies" refer to and not her "life energy."

 

[Tarang123]

I think the scan just says the energies she used to create the multiverse would return to the Source after she died. That's probably what "her energies" refer to and not "life energy."

It says she was meant to die and that her energies would go to the Source. I think that might refer to life energies. At least, that's what the scan implies.

 

[Deagonx]

Also even if Deagon was somehow right here, the thread can't be closed since his reasonings are complete different from the current justifications.

My reasoning are responding to your arguments. So yes, if your arguments are debunked, the thread should be closed.

I think the scan just says the energies she used to create the multiverse would return to the Source after she died. That's probably what "her energies" refer to and not her "life energy."

That doesn't make sense. Why would she still have the energy to create the multiverse after the multiverse had been created? Why would that energy return to the Source specifically after Perpetua's death? Why would they call that "her energies?"

Why make all these leaps instead of just accepting that the Source clearly scales above the Hands?

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

It says she was meant to die and that her energies would go to the Source. I think that might refer to life energies. At least, that's what the scan implies.

Yeah she was meant to die after her creating the multiverse was done(her creating the multiverse was her duty) and then the energies that she had that created the multiverse would go back to the source after she died. This seems to have more basis than what Deagonx is saying.

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

My reasoning are responding to your arguments. So yes, if your arguments are debunked, the thread should be closed.



That doesn't make sense. Why would she still have the energy to create the multiverse after the multiverse had been created? Why would that energy return to the Source specifically after Perpetua's death? Why would they call that "her energies?"

Why make all these leaps instead of just accepting that the Source clearly scales above the Hands?

Why would the energies suddenly just deplete just because she created the multiverse? The scan just says that she fulfilled her duties aka creating the multiverse, nothing implies that the energy got depleted right after she created the multiverse
The energies would go back to Perpetua simply because she was done with her duty, she was just going to die. They call it her energies because that's the energy gifted to her by the source.

 

[Transcending]

google is the answer
i searched it up and it is true. there is only 1 source wall.

​

There might be, but that's irrelevant to my argument. The Source Wall exists everywhere, in all dimensional levels. The wiki clearly distincts every level(proven by POTM blog) and I made an analogy to explain it well too. A scan from Countdown said "Source Walls" as well

Deagon and the others provided all the evidence they could give but yall are just ingorin

He didn't give evidence and he himself admitted to it.

and that this argument will not lead anywhere, so we should preferably close this thread as quickly as possible

No. The discussion about if Lucifer, Dream, and Michael is 1-A has already ended and just needs evaluation. Deagon however, has been for some reason constantly trying derail the thread, first by discussing my character, and now by discussing the relation between Source and Perpetua.

 

[Transcending]

My reasoning are responding to your arguments. So yes, if your arguments are debunked, the thread should be closed.

You saying they are debunked does not equate to them being debunked.

And if the thread has to be closed, I hope you are ready to explain why space-time being extensions of yourself equals 1-A.

 

[Deagonx]

then the energies that she had that created the multiverse

But she already created the multiverse. Why would she still have the energy if she used it?

This seems to have more basis than what Deagonx is saying.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you have like 15 posts, half of which are agreeing with Transcendings various threads?

Why would the energies suddenly just deplete just because she created the multiverse?

That's how energy works. It's gone when you use it. Why would she have been given more energy than she needed?

He didn't give evidence and he himself admitted to it.

Good God you are delusional.

You saying they are debunked does not equate to them being debunked.

You're right. That's indeed not why they're debunked.

 

[Tarang123]

Yeah she was meant to die after her creating the multiverse was done(her creating the multiverse was her duty) and then the energies that she had that created the multiverse would go back to the source after she died. This seems to have more basis than what Deagonx is saying.

I don't think that has more basis than what was on the page, which seems to imply her energy, including her life energy. Considering that she'd die after her energy went back to the source

 

[Transcending]

Good God you are delusional.

Don't even try to lie now

Saying that an argument is nonsense is not a personal insult, and taking it as one is a choice on your part.

And saying things like "well you must lack evidence which is why you are just saying it's nonsense!" is exactly the kind of thing I am referring to when I talked about "declaring yourself the winner."

It is not everyone else's job to read the source material for you. Constantly making incorrect statements, and demanding everyone else prove you wrong until they're tired or bored, doesn't actually mean you've made a good argument.

Anyone who says with a straight face that it's "the supercelestials just appeared out of nowhere and started working for the Presence, he probably didn't create them" isn't trying to have a reasonable discussion. Anyone who says things like "well maybe the Source is weaker than the Hands, the way a human can be weaker than his boss at work!" Is not trying to have a reasonable discussion.

It's just not worth anyone's time to engage with something like that, because you're not arguing in good faith.

You're right. That's indeed not why they're debunked.

It basically is since you are making claims and not providing evidence, along with trying to derail the thread as much as possible.

 

[Xearsay]

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you have like 15 posts, half of which are agreeing with Transcendings various threads?

This is such a weird accusation that’s irrelevant to the thread.

Good God you are delusional.

And this is also just toxic.

 

[Deagonx]

It basically is since you are making claims and not providing evidence

Oh sure. That's definitely what's happening.

This is such a weird accusation.

I agree. Asking your discord friends to argue on your behalf is weird.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you have like 15 posts, half of which are agreeing with Transcendings various threads?

They're friends, and Tetra usually doesn't even use VSBW. He only responded because someone asked him to.

 

[Xearsay]

Also the whole space and time being extensions of oneself = 1-A thing involving Lucifer was met with an overwhelmingly high amount of disagreement when Kuuzo or whatever his name was made a staff thread about it.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/1-a-clarification.143225/

 

[Deagonx]

Also the whole spacetime being extensions of oneself = 1-A thing was met with an overwhelmingly high amount of disagreement when Kuuzo or whatever his name was made a staff thread about it.

That's not at all what Kuuzo's argument was.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Please don't use conjugated text coping on an argument without actually being embedded with the statement. What you said barely applies to anything. We have seen similar ways of people using this to boost an argument when they never really check how it connects to the basis idea rather just writing something that's not needed or prevalent in explaining anything.

You're just saying just to say.

 

[Deagonx]

I did prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics

Bruh.

 

[Hasty12345]

I did prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics

Can I get a translation, I don’t speak… that…

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

I did prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics

 

[Xearsay]

That's not at all what Kuuzo's argument was.

Yes it was. He literally made that thread arguing that characters who create the concept of space = 1-A in follow up to a discussion where he was trying to prove Lucifer and Michael were 1-A.

Kuuzo - “Characters who create the concept of space must necessarily be 1-A (transcendant).”

And in that previous thread where he was trying to prove Michael and Lucifer were outerversal he was using space and time being extensions of Lucifer as part of his justification.

Also, you can’t act like the thread had nothing to do with those characters because throughout the thread he uses them consistently as examples for what he’s talking about. As shown on the first page, he brings up Michael in comment #12 and literally clips a whole scan from Vertigo featuring Michael and Lucifer in comment #49 when asked to specify the verse he’s talking about.

 

[Transcending]

Anyway can we stop the derailing now? It's not going to achieve anything

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Why would the energies suddenly just deplete just because she created the multiverse? The scan just says that she fulfilled her duties aka creating the multiverse, nothing implies that the energy got depleted right after she created the multiverse
The energies would go back to Perpetua simply because she was done with her duty, she was just going to die. They call it her energies because that's the energy gifted to her by the source.

There may be some underlines we don't know. However, the purpose of the power was specifically augmented to lend energy from the Source to build the Multiverse. She doesn't naturally possess it and it is more likely that she doesn't have the energy anymore. The death part is the final stage and whatever energy may be left would return to the Source.

It's only 1/2 of each side being somewhat right. There's a reason why she needs more energy to keep stuff sufficient.

I do see where you're coming from though when mentioning that the power will be depleted as she does. It looks more like the power is done after the task is done, whatever is left returns back to the Source, the death part is only necessary to let the energy flow through the Mother of the Multiverse that created it. Either way, it wouldn't matter because the Source is still the higher-up.

There's no specific guideline on how Supercelestial functions, some are implied not to create and just judge. It more so how the “function” is naturally she defies this and was punishment in laminated as “life worse than death.”

The Hands are “meant” it's their choice whether they follow this. Perpetual set the example of defying orders.

Personally, I don't have an opinion of the life part but she is unequivocally the person to defy that set function. The scan seems to just go over the small basis of what the purpose are not in detail of what happens truly to the part where they “die.”

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Can I get a translation, I don’t speak… that…

I got you. What his saying is just blabbering especially when he doesn't punctuated his sentence. So you read it as a run-off of info to correlate one idea to the next without going into a basis claim that relates to the topic. Unironically after I responded he deleted and paste another version of it. Slightly changing. In other words “ignore it.”

 

[Beyond_transcending]

Guys, I was joking with my posts because the situation was getting too heated. I apologise for the derailing.

 

[Deagonx]

He literally made that thread arguing that characters who create the concept of space = 1-A in follow up to a discussion where he was trying to prove Lucifer and Michael were 1-A

His thread wasn't about Lucifer or Michael. You're the only one who brought up Michael in that entire thread, and when Lucifer was mentioned he said:

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

His thread wasn't about Lucifer or Michael. You're the only one who brought up Michael in that entire thread, and when Lucifer was mentioned he said:

At this point. We're just arguing for the sake of arguing this thread should be closed. We got nowhere and started less on topic.

 

[Transcending]

At this point. We're just arguing for the sake of arguing this thread should be closed. We got nowhere and started less on topic.

It doesn't have to be closed just because the people who disagree likes to derail

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

It doesn't have to be closed just because the people who disagree likes to derail

This thread isn't necessary. 4 pages of the same pointing reapeating on not agreeing with an idea, add on top of that Deagon and Xerasey to argue with another point from another thread. I don't see how one side will back down even if stay on OT we can’t agree to a consensus. The final straw to how this is determined is by the staff. Clearly, this argument is going nowhere, and I presume you know this as well.

 

[Deagonx]

The final straw to how this is determined is by the staff. Clearly, this argument is going nowhere, and I presume you know this as well.

The last time we were in a situation like this Ant pinged the staff twice and no one responded.

 

[Transcending]

This thread isn't necessary.

You saying it is not necessary does not make it so

4 pages of the same pointing reapeating

Not the same point repeating, we moved from multiple arguments onto new ones, with currently the topic being Perpetua's relation to the Source.

add on top of that Deagon and Xerasey to argue with another point from another thread. I don't see how one side will back down even if stay on OT we can’t agree to a consensus. The final straw to how this is determined is by the staff. Clearly, this argument is going nowhere, and I presume you know this as well.

Yes, so the staff has to evaluate this. They haven't, the members not giving up doesn't mean anything.

 

[Transcending]

The last time we were in a situation like this Ant pinged the staff twice and no one responded.

They could respond now, the current CRT is far more interesting than the other one

 

[Deagonx]

They could respond now, the current CRT is far more interesting than the other one

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

You saying it is not necessary does not make it so

This is saying this thread has become unnecessary. I never made it so because this can be blatantly ignored. I don't see the relevance of putting this point up when it is already self-explained. You added ideas that were not implemented with statements such as this. I'm not staff so I don't make it, it becomes unnecessary from what I saw. Unless this is a rhetorical response.

Not the same point repeating, we moved from multiple arguments onto new ones, with currently the topic being Perpetua's relation to the Source.

This goes over the thread as a whole. This shows you lack the resolve to grasp what I actually said. Points are being repeated and move on to different topics swaying from the main focal point. Perpetua's relation to the Source is not that big to add as another claim unless it supports the idea they sprung from nowhere and the power they use is indirect to their life force. If not dealt with then it becomes unnecessary. You almost don't need this info to answer the topic. Plain and simple.

Yes, so the staff has to evaluate this. They haven't, the members not giving up doesn't mean anything.

I don't understand what you just said. The staff evaluation is needed. Their not saying it yet is not a reason for just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than on what we were discussing in the post earlier. The dilemma shifted and so has the topic. Not meaning anything is a response to what exactly? You can remove that part and it still finishes your idea by disclosing what you're trying to concur here.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

This is saying this thread has become unnecessary. I never made it so because this can be blatantly ignored. I don't see the relevance of putting this point up when it is already self-explained. You added ideas that were not implemented with statements such as this. I'm not staff so I don't make it, it becomes unnecessary from what I saw. Unless this is a rhetorical response.


This goes over the thread as a whole. This shows you lack the resolve to grasp what I actually said. Points are being repeated and move on to different topics swaying from the main focal point. Perpetua's relation to the Source is not that big to add as another claim unless it supports the idea they sprung from nowhere and the power they use is indirect to their life force. If not dealt with then it becomes unnecessary. You almost don't need this info to answer the topic. Plain and simple.




I don't understand what you just said. The staff evaluation is needed. Their not saying it yet is not a reason for just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than on what we were discussing in the post earlier. The dilemma shifted and so has the topic. Not meaning anything is a response to what exactly? You can remove that part and it still finishes your idea by disclosing what you're trying to concur here.

You said what I write was confusing... but I couldn't understand you either.

 

[Transcending]

This is saying this thread has become unnecessary

It's not

I never made it so because this can be blatantly ignored.

What can be blatantly ignored?

I don't see the relevance of putting this point up when it is already self-explained.

What is already self-explained?

You added ideas that were not implemented with statements such as this.

What ideas implemented with what statements?

This goes over the thread as a whole. This shows you lack the resolve to grasp what I actually said. Points are being repeated and move on to different topics swaying from the main focal point.

Which is what we call "derailing", something I asked everyone to stop.

Perpetua's relation to the Source is not that big to add as another claim unless it supports the idea they sprung from nowhere and the power they use is indirect to their life force. If not dealt with then it becomes unnecessary. You almost don't need this info to answer the topic. Plain and simple.

Never said we do, and I actually argued it's derailing and asked people to stop. If others derail, we don't close the thread, we ask them to not derail.

I don't understand what you just said. The staff evaluation is needed. Their not saying it yet is not a reason for just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than on what we were discussing in the post earlier.

I didn't argue for the sake of arguing and I asked others to stop. It's not a reason to lock the thread.

Not meaning anything is a response to what exactly? You can remove that part and it still finishes your idea by disclosing what you're trying to concur here.

When did I say "not meaning anything"?

 

[Transcending]

You said what I write was confusing... but I couldn't understand you either.

Same. @VeryGoofyToddler please improve your English. It's very hard for all of us to comprehend what you are saying.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

You said what I write was confusing... but I couldn't understand you either.

What part? Just the statement I made? Yours was intentional and I don't see where I haven't explained myself properly. So it just comes down to your understanding of reading.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Same. @VeryGoofyToddler please improve your English. It's very hard for all of us to comprehend what you are saying.

Not only it is English, but it was also explained properly and in concise detail. Like the other guy, it's purely your comprehension. If not explain what exactly didn't you understand.

 

[Transcending]

Not only it is English, but it was also explained properly and in concise detail. Like the other guy, it's purely your comprehension. If not explain what exactly didn't you understand.

It wasn't explained properly. Xearsay didn't understand, Deagon didn't understand, I didn't understand, Beyond Transcending didn't understand, and lastly, Tetra didn't understand.