Justify it being a visual effect first, I don't need to justify a negative anyways and your counters to it have a lot of “can bes” and not a lot of is so once again, unwarranted assumption fallacy, appeal to possibility fallacy and shifting the burden of proof.
Again, mindlessly repeating random fallacies you heard off the internet does make you objectively appear condescending and like a know-it-all. Which again, that
in itself is also a logical fallacy. More than 70% of your arguments are just one line of text followed up by three or four fallacies. You're asking me repeatedly to justify it being a visual effect despite the fact I've already done so. Continuing to ask me to justify something after I've already done what you're telling me to do is ALSO a fallacious talking point. To "justify" something does not equate to "convince me I'm wrong". It means to back up your talking point and why you feel a certain way, whether people see it as right or wrong. Even if my justification was complete BS in your mind or hell, in literally everyone's mind, the argument I made is still me justifying my talking point. You're acting like I'm just continuously repeating the exact words "No bro, it's just a visual metaphor!" without saying anything else on the matter. I've told you multiple times that a sound effect and a reaction means nothing, because both of those are not separated from or exist outside the metaphor, they are a part of the very same visual metaphor and it doesn't disprove it by any capacity.
Let me put it like this; let's say that a movie has a scene where Character A states their love for Character B "transcends time and space". Let's say that Character A wrote that statement down on a diary which is found by Character C, who is reading these recorded events from the future. Character C reads the diary, and a uniquely animated, visual representation appears on screen depicting what Character C is reading as a sort of flashback for Character A and B's love story. As Character C reads the "transcends time and space" line, the accompanying visual depicts Character A literally reaching out of his time period and into the future, with the camera zooming out to where we see the timeline itself. A depiction of Character B is also in that scene, and they turn around and embrace Character A as they physically enter Character B's time period. In that same scene, Character A leaving the timeline is accompanied by a sound effect that sounds something like warping through space, which plays again as they enter Character B's time period.
Additionally, the scene/line directly before Character A stating that their love for Character B "transcends time and space", they are given a gift by another character which allows them to see into and interact with the future.
Now let's say that Character A, in the present era of that movie, is now an old man, who's best feats in the entirety of that movie are on a 9-C scale, his greatest showing being splitting a boulder in half with a kick. Character A also has shapeshifting powers to some degree, including the ability to expand his size. Additionally, his greatest showing is also barely saving Character C from a bullet before it fires.
So, is Character A capable of an Immeasurable speed feat? Is what we saw literal because there was a sound and a reaction accompanying it? Is there any proof Character A moved outside of his time period himself and not with the aforementioned technology? Before you respond to this by listing an entire dictionary of logical fallacies, think about what I said.
Same as before,I already HAVE given you arguments and your way of discrediting them is by just saying “Nah uh” that's far more condescending than anything you're describing
And I have as well. You just blindly dismiss them all because "Well this fallacy exists!" and then pretend everything I said equates to "nuh uh" (despite what you're doing being essentially that but with extra steps, I.E continuing to tell me to "justify something" I've already repeatedly justified. Again, "Justify this =/= Convince me it's right"). I have poined out multiple times how your arguments don't prove anything and that a reaction and a sound doesn't make it not a visual metaphor, it just means those things are a part of that same metaphor. We have quite literally zero context on what actually happened in the Garden of Eden, we have no timeframe whatsoever, we have nothing justifying Lucifer being directly attributed to it and it not being an environmental destruction feat accomplished by the Apple of Knowledge. We have
nothing that proves the Earth was literally cracked in half or that it wasn't just a side affect brought about by the Apple of Knowledge releasing sin onto humanity that nobody scales to. Your only evidence justifying it being literal is by looking at the very same thing I'm telling you isn't literal. Because you like fallacies so much, you should know that that is a Begging the Question fallacy.
“Could have” + the angels reacted to it pretty instantly and it was certainly less than a human's lifespan
Nope. You have zero way of proving that beyond "trust me bro". It could very well have taken thousands of years. The gap between Adam and the first modern man is billions of years if you were to assume Adam was created when the Earth was, like what the narration of the scene implies. For all you know, the reason Angels are so strict about Sinners may be because of that supposed Earth split and how catastrophic it was. For all you know, that's why they decided to create the Extermination protocol every year. Also, Adam and his sons according to the Bible lived for several hunderds of years, meaning it still wouldn't be Low 5-B even if the Earth was restored before Adam died.
And I already explained countless times how the "reaction" and "sound" prove nothing. You're using a different part of the same metaphorical scene to justify the whole thing being real. Again, Begging the Question.
, also if you're referring to “Fallacy Fallacy” then that doesn't apply because the very premise of your argument is built of a fallacy, It's not just a fallacy that's contained within it. Also i gave pretty clear reasons as to why these fallacies apply instead of just spouting them (Which you did first btw, trying to appeal to an appeal to possibility)
Well no, I didn't. In fact,
you made an appeal to possibility when you claimed in response to "Why is the Earth fine in Helluva Boss" that "Well obviously the Angels must have restored it!", which you justify by a vague implication that they can manipulate celestial bodies, which doesn't even imply that in the first place. It states that they "began to expand the universe in their ways". Assuming that means the initial expansion period of the Big Bang, that doesn't at all mean they had any part in forming Stars and Planets. The Big Bang isn't an explosion with fully formed stars and planets flying out of it, Stars and Planets
slowly formed over millions upon billions of years through completely gradual, unrelated processes that do not require any objective divine intervention
.
Literally, the first Stars to have ever existed came about over 100,000,000 years after the Big Bang. Using an extremely generous assertion that it took that many years for them to create a single star and that they were directly attributed to it instead of the natural interstellar processes that explain it, that would only get the
combined might of all those angels to 43 Petatons, which is
High 6-A. Again, which itself is an extremely unfounded assumption that is being as generous as humanly possible.
You cannot prove the Earth was literally split. You cannot prove the Angels can directly manipulate Celestial Bodies, let alone in any quantifiable timeframe. You cannot prove the Earth we see the Angels hovering over when they are stated to have "expanded the universe" was actually Earth or Earth-sized and not a hologram or projection (the Earth not existing for nearly 10 billion years after the Big Bang alone would disprove that notion). You cannot prove anything beyond explaining a scene we have no way of knowing is literal beyond explaining what the non-literal scene displays.
Meanwhile, the fact that the Angels looked at the split Earth in horror and in shock
does disprove that they can effectively manipulate celestial bodies or restore them in a reasonable timeframe.
Totally not condescending at all uh huh, also how does the angels being shocked at the earth getting split out of nowhere mean they're weaker than it?
I don't know about you, but if I accidentally erased a large portion of a drawing I was working on but had the undo button available to me, I would be doing that in a few seconds at best. I wouldn't be staring at what happened covering my mouth in shock.
How does Sera being larger than Earth disprove Lucifer upscaling from her?
Um, because the feat you're trying to claim literally happened and that Lucifer scales to is Low 5-B. You're trying to scale Lucifer to Low 5-B. Sera growing bigger than the Earth would be 5-A. 5-A is over 1000x above Low 5-B.
