- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #281
No, I agreed with the saying "the argument is non-existent" isn't an argument in itself. I never agreed with you. So you can kindly stop giving misinformation.No, lol. You literally said you agreed. I did tell you to refresh your memory
No, its gathering scans together. Which is allowed and obviously very basic form of evidence gathering.What you've done here is the very definition of taking something out of context. No it isn't. Stitching sentences together
And nothing is misrepresented when they all mean the same thing. Thats why context is your best friend.to misrepresent the original meanings is completely and utterly unacceptable and palpable if I might add.
Except they very much do and the scans provide that.No I mean fake feats. Feats that do not exist.
"The Creator of Parallel Universes"Prove it.
"Space is ever-expanding dimensions"
I did.
It absolutely can because anything can mean more than one thing. Common Sense. And this "halfway across the world" claim for something from the same region and gen? Nice.There is no evidence. A completely unrelated conversation about parallel universes cannot be taken as evidence about the meaning of the words "infinite space" on an inscription halfway across the world.
They don't need to be used together when both are referring to the same thing. Space.Why do you think that I've been asking you to give me a single source where these two phrases have ever been used together?
That isn't what I said, or meant, obviously.Unrelated trite. The point was that you made the illogical argument that sounded as if the existence of the multiverse depended on whether or not it had been described on a rock. I was merely correcting that statement.
Not a point. The point is that it still alludes to what the Multiverse is. "Dependence" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this.So what? So the existence of the multiverse doesn't depend on whether or not "infinite space" refers to an infinite multiverse or not, thereby invalidating that line of reasoning.
It really really really doesn't.It really really does. We can follow your line of reasoning and jump to any number of faulty conclusions.
And that's not what my point was about so I don't care. My point was that the expansion of space clearly and most definitely needs to be referring to the number of universes, as that's the only way a Multiverse comes about in the first place. Pokemon isn't a large scale universe, so space being expanded in the beginning means its the creation of the Multiverse's universes.You are yet to prove that it does. You have attempted to do so through your "the multiverse would not exist if the rock isn't referring to parallel universes" interpretation and I have utterly debunked that.
Therefore, its referring to the number of universes. As is supported by Palkia being the creator of parallel universes and space being considered ever-expanding dimensions.
Nope. Several meanings for one thing very much exist at once.Either the statements support a given interpretation or they don't. Anything else is speculative at best.
It should be clear. It means you don't dictate what counts as evidence and what doesn't.I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.