Saying your own uncapability is not an argument. You must have to attack the arguments. I can't make a simpler explanation about how does it mean "transcendent" because ATP, it is literally obvious and I am not intending to re-make my argument in a simpler and better format 'till you debunk them or explain how the stuffs I am showing is not "transcendent" in your mind. Because I am not making these arguments for just to be denied by "nuh uh".
I'm afraid you've managed to confuse
"argument that follows the argument with that linked evidence" with
"argument that is irrelevant with no evidence". If you didn't look at the evidences carefully then jump into other argument and thought: "
There is no evidence! So it must be wrong! I must to question it!", all I can say is that: Take time to read, pal. And no, that is not my personal opinion. Why did you even think that? Are you saying this to any logical conclusion based on context of words? With all respect, please stop it.
If you did read, you, with all necessary, must saw
this. But you didn't read it, and I know it.
Sorry pal, but if I made an argument following other one that is linked with an evidence, it is your responsibility to read it all of the evidence carefully and connect the points together if you are interested about it and want to talk about it. That evidence you are asking is already connected with the argument that is linked by the evidence by "(the evidence linked argument), as it is implied...". But however, I am here help you to make you understand, so
here's the evidence you are asking for.
What you are saying is acceptable if I used word "transcends", because all the things you have said here is related to word "transcends". Sure, you can still use "beyond" by entailing it, but what you did say is not necessary. So...
Too bad, I didn't use word "transcends".
I didn't linked the wrong evidence, the evidence I have showed already in same argument. If you didn't check all the evidences to ensure that you didn't miss anything, then what do you want me to say? Don't give me all the blame if you are just here to oppose me.
If the Calamity threatens all universes and if Nolan was wanting to stop the Calamity in all universes and wants to destroy the Calamity, logically speaking, this would entail that the Calamity is threat for all universes, because if it was not, why would Nolan even split his soul to all universes to stop Calamity? Think, pal. Think.
Who said anything about sprititual superiorty? Nobody argued that, pal. Where did you get that?
"Faceless" and "Unique" are all metaphors to describe God. Unique mean here is God is different than what he created and is not like his creation that is dependent to him, so you can really have meaning of "Transcendent" here. "God is Faceless" is a common metaphor when speaking about nature of God. God doesn't have a real appearance so you can't see him nor sense him, so you can get the meaning of "Incomprehensible" here. You can get a better argument if you try combine this two arguments to argue what I am arguing. Also, you didn't justify anything here, pal, and you are not justifiying almost anything in your other comments too. All you are saying is "IT IS NOT!" with no substance. If you want to debunk my arguments, at least make proper arguments instead of meaningless claims.
The existence of infinite dimensions doesn't alone provide existence of infinite possibilities. Think it as having infinite planets, does this mean all planets have a different version of x within their framework? No. Because while dimensions are spaces, possibilities are about "what ifs" of these spaces. The scan I used states that there are both infinite dimensions and possibilities, right, but this doesn't necessarly imply that both are same.
I fear that you didn't take your glasses. Take a good look at the two scans I have showed to you, you still have time. I have SS'ed them both from my this imbur
link to show it to you myself.
You didn't even read all of the blog, did you? Because in the blog, I made an conclusion based on
some things to conclude that the Laws are beyond dimensions. So, well... You can cherry picking all you want, it wouldn't manipulate anyone here, pal.
I must inform you that the Laws are timeless as they never came into being, but always existing even before beginning because the Laws are what makes "beginning", and that they are immutable. Making them beyond time. And that the Laws are absurd beyond all measure and understanding of universe of limited beings; size of the manifestation was alone exceeding measurement of infinity. And since it governs all existence, it means it governs all space, we can easily say that it is beyond space too. It was necessary for Layla to make an attack that was piercing dimensions to defeat the Manifestation, and so I made an basic logic here, if the Laws are entirelly beyond the Manifestation, then the Laws are beyond dimensions and I supported it by saying it governs all dimensions in existence.
Also reminding to you, you can make conlusion based on logical reasonings that is following evidences; you don't necessarly need direct statements about "it is x, it is y".
You are the one who claim that it is not 5-D and doesn't meet requires. If you can't back up your claims, then don't make them in the first place. If you are going to continue talking like this, I suggest you to go leave this post because you are not actually doing anything at all, speaking with my all honesty.