If everything you've used to reach your conclusion is in the OP, then your reasoning is insufficient.
I did not assume you would get hung up on the gun analogy, given what I previously mentioned. Being able to do a 2-A ability, does not necessarily, fundamentally give 2-A durability. The things are often connected, but it is not the base case. You've said, at this point, that the CRT more or less hinges on this assumption being true, but it is not.
I haven't predetermined anything, and the accusatory half-insults are going to become tiring very quickly. I asked
you to defend the assumption that the Zero Point had a 2-A dura, and you haven't. You have simply suggested I take it at face value. This is not the standard of the wiki.
2. I didn't think I had to say it but It seems I do. Consume, from whatever dictionary you can find, simply means to absorb or in this case at least. So to simply put it, he was going to absorb the Zero Point. Done and set. Even another staff member pointed it out.
This is such an egregious leap of logic that I don't even know where to begin.
"Consume" means to eat. He was going to eat it. You are extrapolating from a word meaning "eat", that he was going to absorb it and gain its power, when nothing else seems to suggest this is the case.
You have constantly appealed to authority in this discussion (more or less deriding me for not falling in line with the evaluations of other staff members), when this does not fix the inherent flaws in the assumptions you lay out. That they glossed over them is not my issue.
3. And why may that be? This is another assumption you've baselessly thrown out. As far as scaling goes, if x can consume and destroy y that has done z feat and is rated at tier a, then logically, x would scale to tier a via reasons stated.
This isn't an assumption, man.
You are the one giving
me assumptions.
I am telling
you that we have no reason to assume this. And no, that isn't how powerscaling works at all. If it was, glass cannons would not exist. We require satisfactory reasoning for a character to scale in durability and AP. 99% of the time, that is indeed the case, characters and objects frequently and typically do share them, but it is not the fundamental truth of the matter. It does not require an exception for me to ask you to give me the reasoning-- for something to be taken as true, we need a reason to do so. You have given me literally
no reason to follow your assumptions, and instead have gotten rather aggressive when asked to provide reasoning at all.
4. Is it not the opposite?
Regardless, there's no need to assume anything when its outright shown to you. And since when does the 3rd law not apply? Its not even like its what's being applied here. And if energy blasts tanked physically doesn't grant durability, I really want to know what you think does. Most of durability scaling comes off surviving x attack (AP) on one's body, no? I'm interested to know what and why there's an exception here.
It is not.
You haven't outright shown anything.
Newton's Third Law doesn't apply to things above a 3-D capacity (e.g., the creation of a multiverse).
Because fictitious things like energy blasts do not fundamentally follow things like that. We assume Newton's Third Law for things like Hulk punching someone-- clearly his fist can tank the damage, it was part of the collision-- but not necessarily Doctor Strange generating a bolt of magical energy. If the verse displays evidence that Newton's Third Law would apply, we would use it, though given the 2-A tier you're gunning for here, it wouldn't really matter regardless.
5. And once again, regardless of durability, you have not address the power it holds which is what actually matters in terms of this scale. I would appreciate if you address that if you had anything to say. W could even throw out the durability thing and it still wouldn't change the scale. The characters I mentioned weren't punching the zero point if that's what you're envisioning, they were directly scaling to it's energy.
That is because this is a strawman. I'm not contending that the Zero Point isn't 2-A. I do think the cosmology blog is pretty shabby and egregious in its assumptions, but at this moment in time, what is accepted on the wiki seems to satisfy that it has done a 2-A feat. What is at issue is this scaling to any characters, since so far the only feat is "consuming and destroying" it, when it does not have any reason to have a 2-A durability.