Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Composite Presence is the strongest character in DC comics.I agree with this. Under composite I think the Presence comfortably reaches 1A-High 1A depending on your scalings, but Vertigo on its own isn't that impressive.
I personally disagree with this but I respect your opinion.Composite Presence is the strongest character in DC comics.
bro look at the revision blog (vertigo)Heaven is not 2A or 1C. It simply exists outside the creation in vertigo.
The Presence itself would only be 2A without scaling from composite Cosmology.
Just existing beyond is not a qualitative superiority.bro look at the revision blog (vertigo)
Presence created infinite timelines (2A)
Heaven is beyond that making it Low 1-C (5D)
The mansion of silence is beyond heaven and houses thousands of creations making it Low 1-C (6D)
The void is beyond everything else
im too lazy to add detail mbJust existing beyond is not a qualitative superiority.
Checked it and there's not much. The reasoning for Heaven being Low 1-C is that Heaven "transcends" creation but "transcending" isn't a qualitative superiority. That's explicitly stated in the FAQ, and the other descriptions do not indicate the existence of any QS.im too lazy to add detail mb
but you can check the revision blog which has the same stuff as what i said but with more detail
heaven transcends creation, looks down upon it and views it as sprinkles or smth which is QSChecked it and there's not much. The reasoning for Heaven being Low 1-C is that Heaven "transcends" creation but "transcending" isn't a qualitative superiority. That's explicitly stated in the FAQ, and the other descriptions do not indicate the existence of any QS.
it does as explained aboveThe Mansions of Silence's justification is that it is far beyond Heaven, which would only grant it Heaven's tier at best but Heaven itself doesn't have a qualitative superiority as seen above.
yeahOnly the Void has an actual qualitative superiority. But even then, it's due to viewing creation as infinitesimal and not due to some R>f or anything.
Viewing it as sprinkles would be Low 1-C but do you have a scan?heaven transcends creation, looks down upon it and views it as sprinkles or smth which is
its in the revision blog and the scan says something like, "creation is spangled" in heavenViewing it as sprinkles would be Low 1-C but do you have a scan?
found itViewing it as sprinkles would be Low 1-C but do you have a scan?
Scan said "seemed". So it's not literal. It's just how Archangels view it. And why is viewing something as sprinkles Low-1C? Sprinkles aren't even infinitely smaller.found it
....non sequitr? the word 'seemed' has nothing to do with it not being literal. the archangels are in the silver city, thats why 2-A creation looks blurred and spangled because silver city is so much biggerScan said "seemed". So it's not literal. It's just how Archangels view it. And why is viewing something as sprinkles Low-1C? Sprinkles aren't even infinitely smaller.
Scan just says creation seemed spangled. Two issues with this-found it
im not saying creation itself is spangled. im saying heaven views creation as spangled because heaven is superior to it.Scan just says creation seemed spangled. Two issues with this-
1: It just means creation appeared to be covered with spangles, not that creation itself was spangles
appeal to meaning? the word seemed is being used because heaven quite literally see's it as spangled from their point of view because thats what it looks like from their point of view...2: "Seemed" means it's not necessarily true- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/seem
Not qualitatively so. Humans see things as spangled, they aren't qualitatively superior.im not saying creation itself is spangled. im saying heaven views creation as spangled because heaven is superior to it.
I think you mean Appeal to Definition, but with the dictionary, I have established an equal alternate interpretation, so the burden would be on you to prove the word "seemed" is used here as you say.appeal to meaning? the word seemed is being used because heaven quite literally see's it as spangled from their point of view because thats what it looks like from their point of view...
How did you even come to the conclusion that "seemed blurred and spangled" means its covered with spangles?Scan just says creation seemed spangled. Two issues with this-
1: It just means creation appeared to be covered with spangles, not that creation itself was spangles
2: "Seemed" means it's not necessarily true- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/seem
This is an awful example you're comparing with and i don't see how it relates to heaven viewing a 2-A creation as spangled at allNot qualitatively so. Humans see things as spangled, they aren't qualitatively superior.
explained aboveI think you mean Appeal to Definition, but with the dictionary, I have established an equal alternate interpretation, so the burden would be on you to prove the word "seemed" is used here as you say.
Exactly. This is simple English and grammarAll it means is that the creation looked blurred and spangled. Are we really having an argument regarding semantics?
That's the point, the importance of "seemed", it's not literally spangled, it just appeared to be.How did you even come to the conclusion that "seemed blurred and spangled" means its covered with spangles?
Its not a cat, it just appears to be one. Do you even know what "spangled" means? Its those sparkling lights below. Make an actual argument with proof rather than saying its not literal.That's the point, the importance of "seemed", it's not literally spangled, it just appeared to be.
Hitchen's Razor + Refer to my comment against Immortal. Seeing creation as spangled is not a qualitative superiority, why would it even be?This is an awful example you're comparing with and i don't see how it relates to heaven viewing a 2-A creation as spangled at all
"I know he seems to be a nice man but he's actually a criminal"Its not a cat, it just appears to be one.
Seeing a 2A structure as a tiny dot is actually superiority.Hitchen's Razor + Refer to my comment against Immortal. Seeing creation as spangled is not a qualitative superiority, why would it even be?
We are talking about appearance not their characteristics."I know he seems to be a nice man but he's actually a criminal"
I have plenty of analogies for that too.We are talking about appearance not their characteristics.
As Gold looked down from his window, he saw something, something that seemed to be a tiger, but no, it was actually his Uncle in the costume of one.
When Gold went to the professor's lab, the professor showed him his latest invention. A being that appeared to be a human walked out, but it was actually an android.
As Gold looked down from his window, he saw something, something that seemed to be a tiger, but no, it was actually his Uncle in the costume of one.
I don't see how any of these correlate with viewing a 2-A structure as spangled. Im talking about literal universes and structures while you're bringing up the most irrelevant analogies such as tigers and humans...When Gold went to the professor's lab, the professor showed him his latest invention. A being that appeared to be a human walked out, but it was actually an android.
As a blur is good also.Seeing a 2A structure as a tiny dot is actually superiority.
nothingWhat are the current conclusions and what do we need to do here?
Seemed, so it's not literal. It's just how creation looks like from there. And why is that a qualitative superiority?When they used the word 'seemed' they are talking about its appearance. from heaven's point of view, the IMMENSITY of creation seemed spangled. creation is immense but heaven sees it as tiny little sparkles....this is qualitative superiority.
Again, Heaven was never stated to view creation as tiny little sparkles. It said creation appeared to be spangled, which just means creation appeared to be sparkling from Heaven. The word "appear" is objectively vague. If it was meant to be literal, "was spangled and blurred" would have been stated instead of "seemed spangled and blurred". Qualitative transcendences require explicit evidences here to count, not vague ones.When they used the word 'seemed' they are talking about its appearance. from heaven's point of view, the IMMENSITY of creation seemed spangled. creation is immense but heaven sees it as tiny little sparkles....this is qualitative superiority.
Immortal brought up cats, and I presented an analogy. An analogy isn't something that is an exact equal, it's a separate case that has similarities with the original case. My analogies were presented to prove the word "seemed" is vague, and I established that. It's your job now to prove "seemed" in the context was being used literally.I don't see how any of these correlate with viewing a 2-A structure as spangled. Im talking about literal universes and structures while you're bringing up the most irrelevant analogies such as tigers and humans...
We don't have to do anything right now since this is not the Tiering thread, but the blog for the split said Heaven was Low 1-C with the reasoning that it was stated to transcend creation, when our FAQ explicitly says statements transcendence is not grounds for any kind of superiority, and much less a qualitative one. So I just disagreed with the blog.What are the current conclusions and what do we need to do here?
Yeah thats what i was thinkingCan somebody summarise your issue of contention please? If you are arguing about our ongoing DC Comics cosmology revision, it is inappropriate to do so here.
Can somebody summarise your issue of contention please? If you are arguing about our ongoing DC Comics cosmology revision, it is inappropriate to do so here.
Okay, sorry, I will do so next thread.Yeah thats what i was thinking
@Transcending if you have an issue with the revision blog then explain your issues in the next thread