The light novels straight up use the same scans the old pages did for saying sources are concepts, and the light novels have even LESS content to support type 1 since there's a lot less content.
Not some people saying, that was the entire reasoning of it which DT has refuted
Do you agree with Venuzdonoa losing immortality negation? It's for similar reasons, though afaik it isn't a similar case to Evansmana.
It isn't even a personal concept. Personal concepts only govern a specific thing in their area of influence.
Not how personal concepts work. A concept will inherently govern all component parts of what it governs, even if it's a personal concept. If it didn't work that way, then every concept on the wiki would be type 2.
Hmm, no. Venuzdonoa simply destroys the logic/reason of anything, if you can regenerate after the destruction of your source, then venuzdonoa will simply destroy that logic/reason making it impossible for you to regenerate, like Eugo fused with Ivis who was said to be a simple immortal immutable and other than that was able to regenerate after his destruction, venuzdonoa destroyed that logic/reason making regeneration and immortality useless.
When they get damaged, or affected in general, not even killed, the thing they are the concept of also begins to get affected as with Nousgalia, if they were simply just manifestations of the concept rather than being the concept themselves, by your own argument, them being affected would do nothing to the concept and the resulting object, as you are saying that they only sustain the concept with their life, which is clearly not the case.
...That feels like a massive NLF.
Name one other verse where a character dies, something else gets destroyed, and we assume the character and the thing that got destroyed are one and the same. You can't, because we never ******* assume that, and it's insane that Maou Gakuin is suddenly an exception.
Cool. That doesn't mean we inherently give it immortality negation. This is just the "they can warp reality so they can use every power on the wiki" NLF rehashed with a lot more words.
No, in the LN it is always said that venuzdonoa destroyed the reason for X thing, it is further clarified when he destroyed the reason that graham's nothingness could not be destroyed.
What does that have to do with the source? Go tell that to DT and Deceived.
Literally none of this is immortality negation, though... You're just giving it powers it has never been shown to have because "reason lol". Also, why the hell are you using feats from the old profile??
Well it is a good thing the examples I'm bringing up aren't just people being killed, Nousgalia gets brought down to 10% of his source and the world goes to shit, this is not killed, this is simply just damaged, Aberneyu didn't even get harmed but instead got turned into a castle and turned lethargic and the order of destruction was affected, these are not the gods being killed, just them simply being affected caused the orders, which are the type 1 concepts, to be affected, if it was simply just that they sustained the orders with their life and were not the orders themselves, this should not happen, but it is, so they by default must be.
I am not saying that those feats are to prove Immo negation, I am only proving to you the feats that indicate that it is not NLF as you say, and what I provide according to you is NLF and that is why I gave you the evidence that indicates that it is not NLF:
Let me simplify this: Does Venuzdonoa have any direct feats or statements of negating immortality? Yes or no?
...The exact same logic applies though, just because your existence is intrinsically linked to a thing does not mean you are literally, physically that thing. If you cut down a tree, the apples on it will be affected, but does that mean the tree is an apple? No, ******* of course not. Gods are what govern order, so of course order collapses without them. That doesn't mean they ARE order.
Gods don't govern order. That is not said anywhere. Gods are Order.
Assuming this is all true, just for the sake of argument, then i can see an argument for Sources being Type 1 Concepts.
We have more scans sayings that god are just order, but sadly they are from far ahead in the LN. But we have the WN scans tho
You cannot embody something and also be that thing. It's inherently contradictory.
I'm pretty sure it might just mean they embody the concept and are the concept.
You can embody beauty and can also be beauty yourself. That's not contradictory in least.
Where does it say it is contradictory? And why do you assume that only then embody is correct here when we already provided the necessary feats for AE 1 and where it is said that they are order, what you say that they are not order and their whole existence is order.
I mean, that'd require for there to be some sort of avatar/true form shit going on, which doesn't seem to be the case here. To embody something is to represent it in a bodily or material fashion. So you cannot simultaneously physically be a concept, and be the physical manifestation of that concept, because that'd require being within two contradictory states of being at the same time. You can't be physical and non-physical simultaneously.
Yeah alright buddy
Embodiment doesn't need physical body or have to be physical. There are many characters who are concepts (living concepts) in our profiles. And after all that, I don't see why it's contradictory. A concept of beauty by definition embodies of all beauty.
Yes, and that's what makes them type 1. However, MG gods are stated to embody order. This cannot be the same as being order. Even if the body isn't physical, it's still just a manifestation of a concept, and not the concept itself. You're assuming "embody" exclusively refers to literally being a concept when that's just... objectively not true, and I can point to many examples of characters only getting type 2 AE from embodying concepts.
Google what is embodiment and see if you think it contradicts to be the same as others because in English definition there is nothing of this.
If they're stated to be an order and embody order then that's that. As smth that embodies beauty is not necessarily a concept but a concept of beauty embodies all of beauty, wether it's the beauty w.r.t humans, lions, aliens or whatever. Concept of beauty embodies all beauty within itself.
You cannot be a representation of something you are. Otherwise you'd be saying that order isn't order, but just a representation of order (which is actually order, because order embodies order, which is embodied by order, which is governed and controlled by order, and if order is destroyed then order collapses), even though order (the representation of order) is literally order (which is embodied by order) despite being the representation of order.
