Since we're heading into a repeat of the events of the last thread.
>
It's pretty obvious that Uranus' body created "the stars", but that is literally a 4-A feat. They were already fighting in an empty space when the fighting started and didn't produce a Big Bang. The fact that Uranus' explosion literally created a recognizeable real life nebula (The God's Eye Nebula) also debunks that his body is universal in size.
At one point you say he created all the stars, and at one point you say he created a "recognizable real life nebula" with his explosion. Which one is it? All stars together wouldn't fit together into a single nebulae. Or maybe we can actually take the statements at face value instead of going by the fact that the explosion surrounding his body looks a little, teensy bit like a real life structure? Which is obvious pareidolia either way?
It is stated three separate times that Uranus created the universe in the comic book. This immediately dismisses any sort of contention made in this thread that has nothing backing it up.
>
And I still question how we can seriously take statements such as "This spear supports the weight of the cosmos" and a comic-con statement of "Cronos killed his father Uranus at the dawn of time" as proof of 3-A and Low 2-C respectively. Specially since Cronos creating time is demonstrably wrong.
We can take the first statement seriously because it is literally meant to be taken seriously. So says the artbook of the game, and so says WoG. The exaggeration is supposed to be literal and taken on purpose according to an official commentary on the multiplayer weapons. Saying literally anything else requires you to actually put up proof against it instead of just disbelieving the statement.
And, for the second one, that isn't even what is actually stated by the panel to begin with. Can you actually provide evidence against the feat instead of saying it is "obviously wrong"? Saying it's wrong "because it is" isn't, and will never be an argument.
>
It's interesting that every single feat in the opening after Uranus' is planetary in scope and its implication with Gaia stating that they "forged the Earth".
Gaia, the embodiment of the earth who was spawned by said war, talks about her domain, yes.
>
Reminds me of Gyeges stating that Uranus and Gaia are the "Father of the universe and mother of the Earth" respectively, as if both are feats of equal significance
No, he doesn't say that.
- "Sired by Uranus, he who gave life to the universe. Torn off the loins of Gaia, mother of all creation."
And they do have equal importance. Both of them are the rulers of the universe as wife and husband.