- 842
- 511
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)
- Thread starter DemonGodMitchAubin
- Start date
- 5,344
- 6,087
I have recovered from the mean words that Theoretical have said to me.
I can safely say MGQ negs Masadaverse + Nasuverse combined.
I can safely say MGQ negs Masadaverse + Nasuverse combined.
- 2,548
- 2,146
I wish Goetia won, man…
- 1,607
- 727
Goku victims
- 842
- 511
I sincerely apologize, I will never do it again.
- 842
- 511
Real
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
So what do you think about Theoretical's post?
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Ultima should see this tbhIkr but one is higher than the other and considered to be too high for such statements so "nlf applies" the way how nlf is used in the wiki is so arbitrary
Shit where did you get all of this
Tbh hypothetically if you argue Tao which is very consistent representation of the roots nature you can have some argument for that considering how every statement for the root corresponds hyper-literally to Tao statements
So theoretically speaking
Looking at the similarities it all starts with this
Everything that comes from the origin/the root is destined to return back to the root which is also said in the source material:
The dead return back to the root
Furthermore
The constant Tao is ineffable for it is absolutely nothingness beyond descriptions
Which corresponds to the source material:
In the source material as well, the basis for the ineffability of the Root is predicated from it being absolute nothingness even where "swirl of the origin" cannot be used to describe [ ] because it is a name hence seperate and inferior to [ ] which denotes for kara/emptiness.
Then we also have these statements:
Even tho 0 is synonymous with emptiness, zero cannot be used to define tao the absolute nothingness.
Which corresponds to the source material as well:
And again we have this:
It is said to be something that has no boundaries that which cannot have a name
In the source material this is said too
Getting into the idea of the akashic records it is an aspect of the Root that exemplifies wholeness containing everything yet still containing everything the root is both everything and nothing.
Which also stems from how Tao works:
Whilst in the source material this is reiterated too:
And again:
And again but more blatant this time:
This was proposed in the thread, to seperate "swirl of the Root" and "Kara" because despite the term swirl of the Root referring to something indescribable just for the fact that it is a name it can't be ineffable; thus isn't exempt from the ineffability paradox, which is why names cannot apply to divinity even when they are used to refer to it that's how it works in contemporary negative theology but people are practically ignorant so it can't be helped.
In tao this is said as well:
Tao can be spoken of that which is spoken off is an aspect of divinity but it doesn't apply to the one that cannot be spoken of which another aspect of divinity which has divine ineffability.
Same thing is said in the source material as well
And Again:
Terms for example like "akashic records" are used to refer to the same divinity but a different aspect of it, to say it contains every record of existence is correct but it doesn't refer to the aspect that cannot be spoken off as wholeness is a part of divinity just as much as ineffability is which is a different aspect that superscedes its other aspects and is the divinities true form.
Some things can be said about divinity/the root/Tao like it exists beyond dimensions which would apply to some aspect of it but a lesser one that which the true form of it they can't be named would still be separate and superior to it.
As for this (the root apparently being bound by dimensions)
It only seems to speak about the wholeness aspect of it, of course it would contain all of dimensions and exist at whatever pinnacle of dimensions that exist within the nasuverse but kara would still be above this, it's not even anti feat.
Tao exists beyond Dualities, beyond distinction (yin and yang) and non distinction (taiji).
Which in the source material its supported as well, true emptiness being unrestricted from binary oppositions as a territory of freedom (this would include space time because it's part of the distinctions that exist in yin and yang).
What it says ab taiji (source material)
And then we have this:
Similar to Tao having negative theology would still allow for you to exist beyond dimensions of your respective reality so the fact that people think this was an anti feat is pretty silly (supported in the source material either way too so).
Now that, that's out of the all of this was just supporting evidence as to how nasu got his inspiration for the root from Tao seems blatantly clear now with all of that being said if you revisit this statement again.
It relates to Tao's infinity as well works:
How to define infinity as infinite is to make it definite hence not infinity because infinity is only infinity if infinity is incomprehensible hence [] as they said here.
It was directly compared to absolute infinity as well.
but the direct comparison doesn't matter because I feel like people would still say that's not enough and it's vague; the need for a direct statement is practically nigh useless because the explanation of the infinity being ineffable is a direct comparison in itself, in a sense that absolute infinity also works like that with how it's strong reflection principle works.
If the infinity is a collection everything in V then trying to capture it one way or another positively you'll fail because the characterization is satisfied by atleast one large cardinal or certain large sets in V; hence absolute infinity is only absolute infinity if it's ineffable.
The argument for high 1-A can still be achieved
- 5,344
- 6,087
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Dao is 1-A (and will be downgraded to Low 1-A in the future) because it is the source of infinite amount of spatial dimensions, at least in ergenverse.
- 5,344
- 6,087
that's just ergenverse tho. Dao stuff is extremely common in xianxia and xuanhuan.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Nasuverse is not Ergenverse
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Dao in Low Dimensional Games are infinitely Low 1-A. In Blue and White is High 1-A. And in another verse is around complex multiversal tier.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Why are you showing your face here?
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
You look like the clown tbh. You can't even comprehend basic theology
- 5,344
- 6,087
Not something in verse so I doubt that even matters. It just ends up being a NLF or proof by example fallacy.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
You make me laugh.
I'm an occultist and Muslim mysticist. Theology is my bread and butter. I agree that in actuality a true negative theology shouldn't even have any tier. Because they cannot be described by tier and even the tier itself are coming from them.
You are the clown here -- no, you are the entire circus. Just the sheer amount of wall of text you write made me laug.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Why should I care if you are a Muslim mysticist? You clearly don't understand shit lmfao
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
What kind of shit?
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Basic shit. You literally didn't know how Apophatic Theology worked some months ago. If it weren't for I and Theoretical, you woukdnt know that Theology. Stop acting like you know something cuz you are a Muslim. Islam doesn't even use Apophatic Theology. Only Christianity, Judaism and Taoism
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
How dare you saying this to may face?
Did you even understand what tasawuf is for? An attempt to understand Allah, but you will never understand him cause he is the one who create the understanding and he is outside of all of creation understanding.
Did you even know what is Islam theology consist of? I won't stand an attempt to discredit Tauhid of Islam even if they didn't know it.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
I didn't understand Apophatic in western equivalent.
Adter knowing it, it is no different from Tauhid.
Adter knowing it, it is no different from Tauhid.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
I don't realk want to delve into a religious topic but how is any of this Apophatic?
- 5,344
- 6,087
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Christian god are often portrayed as an old man in some of media, while in islam it is not allowed to potray him in any form. Because everything that ever created cannot describe him and he can't be described by anything in this world.
Even the one who prophet Muhammad seen is just his light, not even his true form as form itself are just part of his creations.
- 39,668
- 15,591
My point about them should coorporates for once still stand tbh, that's the reason why the verse will never come back
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Akasha embodies Tao and Dao to the very core. Not some watered-down versions that cap at a specific tier. This is not a proof of example fallacy.
- 3,484
- 3,322
Oof, now that's a giant hole of Iconoclasm and Iconoclasts to jump down. The allowance of portrayals of God in Christianity are... iffy to say the least.
Not to mention the fact that he's meant to be veiled and unseen. Burning bush, I am that I am, etc.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Christian God is directly implied to not even be seen by anybody wtf are you on lmao? One of the reason he's considered Apophatic is because of this sentence "I AM THAT I AM"
And?
- 5,344
- 6,087
But to say it relates to absolute infinity because a guy compared the tao to so is. The Tao is a philosophical concept before absolute infinity was even a thing.
- 842
- 511
This is ridiculous.....dao alone is apophatic I've read about 6 different books on Tao and I can even provide screenshots gang.
Dao has two aspects
Wholeness being everything and everywhere.
And nothing that's Apopathic for being pure nothingness.
This is the problem with vs battle wiki people being nameless is not the reason why I said high 1-A.
Absolute has nothing to do with the actual dao at all? I can tell already cause dao never created infinite spatial dimensions.
How does ergen have a better representation of it
Can you show me a scan from ergenverse of dao being true infinity and being apophatic? If so how is it better.
Yes sorry dude you just invalidated you being a valid source for any knowledge regarding theological philosophy; what type of reasoning is this. It's made clear that it being indescribable is via its transcendence over "intelligibility and being/ontologyl" how is that not tierable.
Everything in this wiki's tiering system is bound by either intelligibility or ontology.
Apopathic seems to be the same in eastern philosophy and western philosophy where has it ever been different.
- 5,344
- 6,087
There is just absolutely no proof that The Root is absolute infinity. There's some vague statements about concepts of infinite and finite but you literally can't say it relates to set theory without those elements being present.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
Dude. These people arent just anybody. They are philosophers, professors lol. I literally said that Cantor's absolute infinity is referenced in Tao and Dao but still in a way below it.
- 842
- 511
????!! Just because absolute infinity didn't exist doesn't mean the notion isn't equivalent
Literally just showed you how tao's infinity is practically the same that's why later on some people posit it to be directly absolute infinity
- 5,344
- 6,087
You literally just can't scale it to absolute infinity. Funnily enough it can be considered "cross scaling".
- 842
- 511
It relates to tao's infinity being indescribable because describing infinite making it definite/like transfinite cardinals does not make it true infinity but true infinity is only true infinity if it's indescribable which aligns with cantors views that relates to universe V's ineffability and reflection principle
How is that vague
