• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Genshin Impact Discussion Thread

What u all had been since IT drop
I mean, not really. The visuals is obviously a starry sky and even have mentioned that its a starry sky. There's no reason to believe that's just mere a lights, unless there's an evidence that says so.
 
 
it would be the contrary, since what u stating is proving a negative
When i said "There’s no reason to assume they are just lights without evidence."
That’s not a claim about what they aren’t, it’s a challenge to an unsupported assertion.

The burden is on you when you claim "That's just light" because that's a positive claim, which requires evidence. So without evidence, there’s no reason to default to that interpretation
 
When i said "There’s no reason to assume they are just lights without evidence."
That’s not a claim about what they aren’t, it’s a challenge to an unsupported assertion.

The burden is on you when you claim "That's just light" because that's a positive claim, which requires evidence. So without evidence, there’s no reason to default to that interpretation
Not really, he's true because again we can't prove whether those stars are real or fake especially if it was embedded within False Sky
 
Why would it be? Unless there's evidence those stars are real, Puppet just used an analogy with the entire light thing cause the stars are fake
Because it's independent from the false sky? If you making a premise like "All dimensions we've been through has fake celestial bodies" then you claim "therefore all dimensions that has celestial bodies in the future are fake too." That's clearly non-sequitur and it was never been a universal rules in here.
 
Because it's independent from the false sky? If you making a premise like "All dimensions we've been through has fake celestial bodies" then you claim "therefore all dimensions that has celestial bodies in the future are fake too." That's clearly non-sequitur and it was never been a universal rules in here.
Mona even said the false sky contained real stars, light-years apart , and those that fell into Teyvat were only fragments and parts of constellations, not their full forms.

Therefore, that why Skirk called the false sky a form of Primordial One romanticism toward the universe, because these stars were imitations of real stars, not necessarily unreal
 
All types of pocket dimension so far had been independent of false sky, yet all false
Yet have their own reasons why they're fake.

False Sky = Obviously it's "False Sky"
Imaginarium Theater = It's a dimension within a book.
So could u actually prove this time fr they are real and not 5 chirstmas lights?
Visual evidence defaults to the most consistent interpretation, unless they're proven otherwise.
 
and those that fell into Teyvat were only fragments and parts of constellations, not their full forms.

Therefore, that why Skirk called the false sky a form of Primordial One romanticism toward the universe, because these stars were imitations of real stars, not necessarily unreal
The link says "part of a constellation," not part of a star. If you know that constellations are clusters of stars, then no, for that structure to be so affected and for it to be said that a part fell, it must be something significantly large from one of the "stars."
 
The link says "part of a constellation," not part of a star. If you know that constellations are clusters of stars, then no, for that structure to be so affected and for it to be said that a part fell, it must be something significantly large from one of the "stars."
bro, it's called a shard.
 
Because it's independent from the false sky? If you making a premise like "All dimensions we've been through has fake celestial bodies" then you claim "therefore all dimensions that has celestial bodies in the future are fake too." That's clearly non-sequitur and it was never been a universal rules in here.
No because that's fr not what I claimed, it's like saying if I agree with one of Puppet's point = I agree with all of his points which doesn't make sense especially if I'm the one getting jobbed for this 💔
Yet have their own reasons why they're fake.

False Sky = Obviously it's "False Sky"
Imaginarium Theater = It's a dimension within a book.

Visual evidence defaults to the most consistent interpretation, unless they're proven otherwise.
Yeah but there are statements that says they're fake and not real stars so statement > visual here
 
No because that's fr not what I claimed, it's like saying if I agree with one of Puppet's point = I agree with all of his points which doesn't make sense especially if I'm the one getting jobbed for this 💔
That's why i said if.

Yeah but there are statements that says they're fake and not real stars so statement > visual here
Visual evidence defaults to the most consistent interpretation, unless they're proven otherwise
 
bro, it's called a shard.
With this definition (of the word shard) you can't establish a size for those fallen pieces, so you've really added little to the discussion
Adepti's one was only from their mind.
Adeptus one are actual domains we can visit
so in the end they arent stars and therefore its unscalable 😭 🔫
THIS VERSE IS GONNA CAP AT HIGH 5A
 
 
06a6a238e65e.gif
 
I thought it was a thread you'd started. It's a shame it wasn't.
 
Given that Kuuvahki originates from the Authority of the Three Moons fused within Columbina, I don’t think Nibelung should possess Kuuvahki among his abilities. Nor should the Heavenly Principles. Although, for some reason, despite not knowing what the Kuuvahki is, the Moon Goddesses identified it as Columbina’s lunar power. So I suppose the Kuuvahki is simply the energy of the nameless Light Realm itself, unlike the Phlogiston, which is an energy derived from it.
 
It would be a good idea to improve the low quality of many profiles. The traveller’s profile needs a lot of work on its keys.
 
It would be a good idea to improve the low quality of many profiles. The traveller’s profile needs a lot of work on its keys.
6-B to Low 5-B to 5-B in the same key that the baseline is fr just country level Traveler unless specifically stated which Traveler is being used (like when I specific stated it was Eternal Moon's Marrow Traveler). This kind of formatting sucks lowkey because the best option would just to separate the keys for their amplification since the Traveler can't just amplify himself through Eternal Moon's Marrow or New Moon's Blessing in cross-verse fights
 
Back
Top