Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

[Tdjwo]

Existing before things existed isn't the same as apophasis though. The fact that the word is god (something explicitly stated) is there would be more of an anti-feat to apophasis, no?

The reason it says the word is God is because the word came from God. You could clearly see that it initially said the word was with God. There is no antifeat in this statement. God transcends the words he spoke. "LET THERE BE LIGHT"

Any higher dimensional being could satisfy the exact same statement lmao

Idk if you are a Christian or not but I guess the reason you made this statement is because you didn't understand the context.

Again, literally any higher dimensional being could qualify for this. Apophatic Theology is something that can only be described in what it isn't, which you didn't show. Being above human comprehension can, again, be satisfied by some 4D or 5D being.

Isn't this just saying that he can't be understood? Or that we can't understand the meaning behind his actions? It doesn't seem to be hinting at some apophasis.


On its own it doesn't really seem like adequate evidence for Apophatic Theology. Like, at all.

Look man, God says; "I AM THAT I AM." Literally any other thing you say to him is not what he is because he is only what he is. Kinda like the ineffability thesis. Any other description is not enough or correct to try describing God. I joint all you other comments because they are equalling misunderstanding what God is.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Btw which Lostbelt King Boss was your favorite or left the most impression on you?

I would say mine is Morgan followed by Arjuna Alter

I feel like QSH is underrated with the presence of Altjuna, Zeus, Morgan, Kukulkan
The man is singlehandedly the best king for his own land compared to the others who literally rule them with a tyranny nor only care for the future (Kukulkan)

 

[LehenDuo]

didnt they copy humans or like to copy them?

Yes, but that is not the cause of their bullshit.

They copy Humans, but it's basically mechnical and without meaning. They talk about this is Avalon at some length when they are in the city.
Fairies for some reason like the things that men create, but can't understand them even if their lives depended on it.

They being shitty is an inherent thing of theirs.

 

[BoastJr]

sometimes writers do not focus on making a good story and instead devolve their writing into a "dick measuring contest". All for the sol purpose of battleboard...

sad isnt it.

 

[Theoretical]

Taoism no doubt exists in Nasuverse. I just don't agree with saying taoism has absolute infinity

"Infinity is not "". In order to render infinity, one must define limits. Without limits, infinity does not exist. Infinity can be observed because objects possess limits. Ryougi Shiki was immersed in infinity, but found the non-existent limit and severed it.

Of course, limits do not exist within infinity, thus one cannot sever something that does not exist. As a result, escaping from this prison is impossible.

However --- without limits, infinity does not exist. Regardless if a finite wall existed, an limitless world is meaningless before Ryougi Shiki.

If there is no limit, then it is not infinity, but " ". If limits exist, then Rougi would find it and cut away everything.

It relates to Tao which talks ab how Tao's infinity works this cough

What is the Infinite? To define it as other than the finite is to set the infinite apart from the finite, and thereby limit it. To define the infinite, therefore, is to make it definite, and no longer infinite. In fact, to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite. Like the Tao, the Infinite that can be named is not the true Infinite. The Infinite, then, is ineffable. …Or is it? If we think that the Infinite is ineffable, we have once again defined it by distinguishing it from what is not ineffable. The Infinite is so utterly ineffable that we cannot even say that it is ineffable. Even this, however, is saying too much.

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

If there is no limit, then it is not infinity, but " ". If limits exist, then Rougi would find it and cut away everything.

The concept of infinity in Western and Eastern philosophies is very similar in some
respects yet different in others. In most Western religions, the Absolute Infinite is referred to as
God. In Taoism, the Infinite is called Tao, or The Way. Another way to think of Tao is as the
source of everything: “We know that life and the universe have a source, but the nature and
depth of that source lie beyond our ken.” (Walker, forward) Even though separated by land, the
ideas of the Infinite in both Taoism and Western religions developed similarly, with the same
attributes and metaphors used to describe it, yet Taoism also has some unique concepts of the
Infinite. .

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 there's an indirect comparison as well once again.

here are obvious connections with central themes in theology, especially
with the medieval doctrine that only negative knowlege is possible of God
(apophatic theology). As it stands, it is indeed a negative statement. However it can be given a positive interpretation as follows. Let us provisionally identify the mathematical Absolutely Infinite with the set theoretic
universe as a whole (V). V is unknowable in the sense that we cannot
single it out or pin it down by means of any of our assertions: no true
assertion about V can be made that excludes unintended interpretations
that make the assertion true. In particular—and this is stronger than the
previous sentence—no assertion that we make about V can ensure that we
are talking about the mathematical universe rather than an object in this
universe. So if we do make a true assertion φ about V, then there exist sets
s such that φ is also true when it is interpreted in s.Cantor did not explicitly articulate this line of argument. Yet he was
probably the first one to make use of reflection as a principle motivating
the existence of sets [Hallett 1984]. He argues that the finite ordinals form
a set because they can be captured by a definite condition: Whereas, hitherto, the infinity of the first number-class (I) alone
has served as such a symbol [of the Absolute], for me, precisely
because I regarded that infinity as a tangible or comprehensible
idea, it appeared as an utterly vanishing nothing in comparison
with the absolutely infinite sequence of numbers. (Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre (1883), endnote
to section 4: [Cantor 1932, p. 205])

Literally the statement that defining infinity does not make it infinite is in reference to transfinite (which have actual descriptions theorems and axioms to assert their existence).

An infinite that cannot be defined as true infinity, this aligns with cantors views of absolute infinity, again with how universe V and reflection principle makes it ineffable.

For us to call absolute infinity anything outside of a collection of everything in V in relation to V is limiting it, to map to some infinity X provide theorems and axioms for it, you fail to capture absolute infinity through what you positive express because there exist some set in V that satisfies such characterization, hence absolute infinity is absolute infinity if it's not defined but ineffable.

The concept of infinity in Western and Eastern philosophies is very similar in some

respects yet different in others. In most Western religions, the Absolute Infinite is referred to as

God. In Taoism, the Infinite is called Tao, or The Way. Another way to think of Tao is as the

source of everything: “We know that life and the universe have a source, but the nature and

depth of that source lie beyond our ken.” (Walker, forward) Even though separated by land, the

ideas of the Infinite in both Taoism and Western religions developed similarly, with the same

attributes and metaphors used to describe it, yet Taoism also has some unique concepts of then infinite.

These similarities are the reason why Tao was later on posited to be equivalent to absolute infinity.

What is the Infinite? To define it as other than the finite is to set the infinite apart from the finite, and thereby limit it. To define the infinite, therefore, is to make it definite, and no longer infinite. In fact, to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite. Like the Tao, the Infinite that can be named is not the true Infinite. The Infinite, then, is ineffable. …Or is it? If we think that the Infinite is ineffable, we have once again defined it by distinguishing it from what is not ineffable. The Infinite is so utterly ineffable that we cannot even say that it is ineffable. Even this, however, is saying too much.

Which again is how infinity in Tao works its only infinite if it's ineffable, defining it is limiting it for the taoists true infinity is only true infinity if it's ineffable

Hence transfinites which actually define infinity cannot reach the infinity taoists envisioned by the Taoists.

"Infinity is not "". In order to render infinity, one must define limits. Without limits, infinity does not exist. Infinity can be observed because objects possess limits. Ryougi Shiki was immersed in infinity, but found the non-existent limit and severed it.

Of course, limits do not exist within infinity, thus one cannot sever something that does not exist. As a result, escaping from this prison is impossible.

However --- without limits, infinity does not exist. Regardless if a finite wall existed, an limitless world is meaningless before Ryougi Shiki.

If there is no limit, then it is not infinity, but " ". If limits exist, then Rougi would find it and cut away everything.

Same shit is said in the nasuverse can't make this up bro even when it's as clear as the sky they'll still say it's a wank.

 

[LehenDuo]

.

Thanks for doing this, because I wouldn't have had the patience.

 

[Tyranno223]

I feel like QSH is underrated with the presence of Altjuna, Zeus, Morgan, Kukulkan
The man is singlehandedly the best king for his own land compared to the others who literally rule them with a tyranny nor only care for the future (Kukulkan)

Eh, his people were all culled at a set age, forbidden from advancing culturally, and all set up to live the nigh-exact same lives across the entire world. There's a reason he saw himself as the only human.


But tbf:


Ivan either destroyed or slept
Skadi was given too little to work with
Atjuna was... Theophobia defined.
Zeus was a tyrant, but gave his people everything they needed, with even the exiles having decent QoL... shame about the space stuff.
Morgan... is a sad story.
Kukulkan is only recently sentient.

 

[Theoretical]

Still all of your banter with MGQ is worrisome so better just drop it immediately or brought this to PM, we don't want this thread to be derailed further

I'm about to be busy with something but
Ahem how can a discussion thread be derailed

And guys, please just drop the religion-for-scaling topic

I'm not involved in the religion talk lol so I don't know why you're talking to me about it

 

[Theoretical]

Thanks for doing this, because I wouldn't have had the patience.

Shiii

 

[LehenDuo]

In Charge of Heaven lol. Probably THE contender for chinese suggsverse with 5000 chapters.

Suggsverse is my guilty pleasure, because I love how anything can mean anything, and therefore, nothing has any meaning in his writting /s

 

[Tdjwo]

It relates to Tao which talks ab how Tao's infinity works this cough

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

If there is no limit, then it is not infinity, but " ". If limits exist, then Rougi would find it and cut away everything.


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 there's an indirect comparison as well once again.

Literally the statement that defining infinity does not make it infinite is in reference to transfinite (which have actual descriptions theorems and axioms to assert their existence).

An infinite that cannot be defined as true infinity, this aligns with cantors views of absolute infinity, again with how universe V and reflection principle makes it ineffable.

For us to call absolute infinity anything outside of a collection of everything in V in relation to V is limiting it, to map to some infinity X provide theorems and axioms for it, you fail to capture absolute infinity through what you positive express because there exist some set in V that satisfies such characterization, hence absolute infinity is absolute infinity if it's not defined but ineffable.


These similarities are the reason why Tao was later on posited to be equivalent to absolute infinity.

Which again is how infinity in Tao works its only infinite if it's ineffable, defining it is limiting it for the taoists true infinity is only true infinity if it's ineffable

Hence transfinites which actually define infinity cannot reach the infinity taoists envisioned by the Taoists.


Same shit is said in the nasuverse can't make this up bro even when it's as clear as the sky they'll still say it's a wank.

Explaining this to these people is pointless. They don't have the comprehension to understand.

 

[BoastJr]

snip

I think he/she was just asking to keep the discussion professional/civil

 

[Tarang123]

The reason it says the word is God is because the word came from God. You could clearly see that it initially said the word was with God. There is no antifeat in this statement. God transcends the words he spoke. "LET THERE BE LIGHT"

Yeah, it came from God. I'm not denying that. But it saying that it "is God" doesn't seem like it supports your case. He existed before the word. It doesn't really say he's above the word either, just that it came from him and that he existed before it.

Idk if you are a Christian or not but I guess the reason you made this statement is because you didn't understand the context.

You said this was strong evidence for Apophasis. On its own, it isn't. That's what I'm saying. As for being Christian, I'm not, though I read the Bible once.

Look man, God says; "I AM THAT I AM." Literally any other thing you say to him is not what he is because he is only what he is. Kinda like the ineffability thesis. Any other description is not enough or correct to try describing God. I joint all you other comments because they are equalling misunderstanding what God is.

"I AM THAT I AM" does not imply that no other description would satisfy that, and you'd need additional evidence that it's referring to something like that. For instance, you have the Root, in which any description/name given to the Root automatically becomes something else that isn't the Root and therefore lower than the Root. That is apophasis. A statement saying "I AM THAT I AM" is not. There is a difference.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

It relates to Tao which talks ab how Tao's infinity works this cough

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

If there is no limit, then it is not infinity, but " ". If limits exist, then Rougi would find it and cut away everything.


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 there's an indirect comparison as well once again.

Literally the statement that defining infinity does not make it infinite is in reference to transfinite (which have actual descriptions theorems and axioms to assert their existence).

An infinite that cannot be defined as true infinity, this aligns with cantors views of absolute infinity, again with how universe V and reflection principle makes it ineffable.

For us to call absolute infinity anything outside of a collection of everything in V in relation to V is limiting it, to map to some infinity X provide theorems and axioms for it, you fail to capture absolute infinity through what you positive express because there exist some set in V that satisfies such characterization, hence absolute infinity is absolute infinity if it's not defined but ineffable.


These similarities are the reason why Tao was later on posited to be equivalent to absolute infinity.

Which again is how infinity in Tao works its only infinite if it's ineffable, defining it is limiting it for the taoists true infinity is only true infinity if it's ineffable

Hence transfinites which actually define infinity cannot reach the infinity taoists envisioned by the Taoists.


Same shit is said in the nasuverse can't make this up bro even when it's as clear as the sky they'll still say it's a wank.

I agreed to stop engaging in this conversation. One last thing. If it's so sound then you should probably make a CRT on it. Maybe get permission for a staff thread too? I won't participate.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

I'm about to be busy with something but
Ahem how can a discussion thread be derailed

With this topic like this between you and MGQ for example

I'm not involved in the religion talk lol so I don't know why you're talking to me about it

I'm not talking with you, i'm talking with the others, while it's nowhere downhill, this kind of topic is sensitive in this site iirc

I think he/she was just asking to keep the discussion professional/civil

Exactly

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Is traum difficult?

 

[BoastJr]

Is traum difficult?

Not really. I would say there is a weird annoying mechanic where you have to end the fight quickly.

Also just keep taunt servants for kriem and you are good as gold

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Eh, his people were all culled at a set age, forbidden from advancing culturally, and all set up to live the nigh-exact same lives across the entire world. There's a reason he saw himself as the only human.

But that's what made him the best ruler out of the Lostbelt Ruler, like the other ruler you mentioned has a flaws, QSH has a flaws but he tried his best which is amazing

 

[Tdjwo]

Yeah, it came from God. I'm not denying that. But it saying that it "is God" doesn't seem like it supports your case. He existed before the word. It doesn't really say he's above the word either, just that it came from him and that he existed before it.

Dude if you acknowledge that he existed before the word and the word came from him which means he created the word, what does that supposed to mean lmao?

You said this was strong evidence for Apophasis. On its own, it isn't. That's what I'm saying. As for being Christian, I'm not, though I read the Bible once.


"I AM THAT I AM" does not imply that no other description would satisfy that, and you'd need additional evidence that it's referring to something like that. For instance, you have the Root, in which any description/name given to the Root automatically becomes something else that isn't the Root and therefore lower than the Root. That is apophasis. A statement saying "I AM THAT I AM" is not. There is a difference.

"I AM THAT I AM" means he is what he is. There is no true reference to what the God is which is why he says only him can describe what he is. It's implying that nothing else can truly describe him correctly. I don't really have the strength to argue about the bible lmfao. THis is a blatant apophatic sentence.

 

[LehenDuo]

Is traum difficult?

Compared to Avalon? No.

Fluffy/Cernunnos is the hardest boss in the game, and I doubt people who actually tried to do it without spoilers would deny it. That said, it's hard because he is a big power level check, not necessarily people of interesting mechanics/gimmicks.

 

[BoastJr]

I will wait out on ORT because I dont have the patience to level all my servants.

Its a tedious process so I will wait for the next lotto to roll by

 

[Tarang123]

Dude if you acknowledge that he existed before the word and the word came from him which means he created the word, what does that supposed to mean lmao?

It does not mean what you want it to mean. It does not mean that he cannot be described by the word no matter what. Here's a scenario to show my point. Say we have a character who exists before dimensions do and then created such dimensions. Do we immediately rate them beyond every stretch of dimensionality (1A)? No, we look for more evidence. Hell, our FAQ literally addresses this. Existing before the word and creating it isn't really adequate evidence for actual genuine superiority imo.

"I AM THAT I AM" means he is what he is. There is no true reference to what the God is which is why he says only him can describe what he is. It's implying that nothing else can truly describe him correctly. I don't really have the strength to argue about the bible lmfao. THis is a blatant apophatic sentence.

You need more context for this though. "I AM THAT I AM" could be simplified as "I am myself". We don't assume that every rando who has said this somehow has Apophatic Theology. I'm not saying that this cannot be apophatic theology. I'm saying it isn't apophatic theology without more context.

 

[Theoretical]

I think he/she was just asking to keep the discussion professional/civil

It's literally hard to do that when a person is being ignorant.

I agreed to stop engaging in this conversation. One last thing. If it's so sound then you should probably make a CRT on it. Maybe get permission for a staff thread too? I won't participate.

I'd rather commit suicide then to open another crt in this website

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I'd rather commit suicide then to open another crt in this website

Don't give up!

 

[LehenDuo]

I will wait out on ORT because I dont have the patience to level all my servants.

Its a tedious process so I will wait for the next lotto to roll by

I'm in the same situation, but it's more because I'm lazy than anything

 

[Tdjwo]

It's literally hard to do that when a person is being ignorant.

I'd rather commit suicide then to open another crt in this website

You could give it to Ultima. Ultima has been trying to upgrade Apophatic Theology in general but he just took a long pause on it

 

[BoastJr]

snip

Why not. Believe in the me who believes in you who believes in the me who believes you

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

You could give it to Ultima. Ultima has been trying to upgrade Apophatic Theology in general but he just took a long pause on it

I showed it to Ultima on discord and he said "I'll ignore that"

 

[BoastJr]

literal frieza moment lol

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

It's literally hard to do that when a person is being ignorant.

Then just ignore it, but knowing you, it will be hard to do

I'd rather commit suicide then to open another crt in this website

Brother, that's not good at all, just don't give up that easily

 

[Tdjwo]

It does not mean what you want it to mean. It does not mean that he cannot be described by the word no matter what. Here's a scenario to show my point. Say we have a character who exists before dimensions do and then created such dimensions. Do we immediately rate them beyond every stretch of dimensionality (1A)? No, we look for more evidence. Hell, our FAQ literally addresses this. Existing before the word and creating it isn't really adequate evidence for actual genuine superiority imo.


You need more context for this though. "I AM THAT I AM" could be simplified as "I am myself". We don't assume that every rando who has said this somehow has Apophatic Theology. I'm not saying that this cannot be apophatic theology. I'm saying it isn't apophatic theology without more context.

This is the last time I would talk about Christianity stuff.

Let's take God's sentence i.e, "I AM THAT I AM" and join it with him creating the word which created the beginning of everything..

God created the word which created existence.

God>the word>existence. The word can't be used as an antifeat for God because of this sentence; I AM THAT I AM. If you try claiming that God doesn't transcend the very word he created, then you are ignoring the I AM THAT I AM sentence. God is what he is. He transcends any other definition and comprehension because you cant describe him by what he created. Literally one of the supporting statements I showed you from the bible verse claimed that God is not comprehensible or reachable. Combine all these statements along with the context and you would see how God is Apophatic.

 

[Tdjwo]

I showed it to Ultima on discord and he said "I'll ignore that"

Yeah because for some reasons he just took a huge break on the topic until recently when he talked about it on the 1A justification thread. He probably doesn't have time for it yet.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Anyway i'm gonna bring out the theory about the other two Ordeal Call Servants again but in detail:

Beside Bhima, i think i have a clear shot on who are the other two (while it's still a theory, the chance are pretty high):

• The man that we thought is Vlad Alter/Count Dracula, might be Count Cagliostro because of the Uroboros symbol on his design, with his involve in the affair of the diamond necklace which might connected to the "crime and punishment" keyword, how he's known for chemistry which connected to "Residue" keyword, and his connection to Dumas a.k.a Dantes author as well. What even is more making sense is Kirei words where he said that "the Count is collecting all of the Olga's remnant and re-create it to something 'new'", and with Cagliostro chemistry/alchemy and his occult profesionalism, this is not entirelt far-fetched
• That woman is Sion but as Lilith with her snake-like coat with her inside of the coat being almost naked, and her lolipop innuedo that can be referenced to the Eden's Apple, Lilith is associated with the storms and connected to Divine Comedy, and her event where she's banished from Paradise can be connected to "Hatred and Loathing" keyword. Now the question is how Sion can become Lilith if it's true?

So, if i can connect all the keyword to the three then it will be like this:

• Bhima: Family, R.A.N.I, Sakura, Paper Moon, AI
• Cagliostro: Count, Crime and Punishment, Flame, Residue
• Sion-Lilith: Etherlite, Woman of Storm, Divine Comedy, Hatred and Loathing, Greed

That's it now, Paper Moon and AI are likely about Moon Cell, so Bhima trial will have many connection SERAPH/Moon Cell, Flames is about Dantes and the connection between Dumas-Cagliostro, Greed is because Lilith wanted Adam and Eden's Apple by all herself iirc, the other keywords need to be analyzed furthermore considering some of it can be tricky (For example, Holy Grail War and Tokyo is hard, might be Cagliostro or Lilith, Trumpet is unknown and so does End Point as well)

 

[Tyranno223]

I will wait out on ORT because I dont have the patience to level all my servants.

Its a tedious process so I will wait for the next lotto to roll by

Waiting for the next double xp or something like that event.

 

[BoastJr]

snip

Solid prediction. I am sold on lilith tbh but I do wonder how alaya will cope when Ritsuka has a beast in their palm

 

[BoastJr]

snip

probably burnt out. I would be too if all my arguments didnt work or had trouble getting agreements

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Solid prediction. I am sold on lilith tbh but I do wonder how alaya will cope when Ritsuka has a beast in their palm

The thing is, why Sion can become Lilith? And why she joined us when she become the trial for Ordeal Call? Is she a spy all along?
And if we look at Melty Blood, Sion became Dust of Osiris, which if i missed something, doesn't have a connection to Lilith.....unless?

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Bro, discussing mythology is dumb enough, now discussing apophaticism about religions... Dude.

It's over so no need to bring this out again

 

[Death_of_Lems]

It's over so no need to bring this out again

Sorry, I was late in posting time.

 

[Tarang123]

This is the last time I would talk about Christianity stuff.

Fair enough. I'll also stop apart from this last response.

Let's take God's sentence i.e, "I AM THAT I AM" and join it with him creating the word which created the beginning of everything..

God created the word which created existence.

God>the word>existence. The word can't be used as an antifeat for God because of this sentence; I AM THAT I AM. If you try claiming that God doesn't transcend the very word he created, then you are ignoring the I AM THAT I AM sentence. God is what he is. He transcends any other definition and comprehension because you cant describe him by what he created. Literally one of the supporting statements I showed you from the bible verse claimed that God is not comprehensible or reachable. Combine all these statements along with the context and you would see how God is Apophatic.

It doesn't say he's above the word though. Yes he created it and existed before it, but it is not an implication that he's above to the extent that it could never be used to describe him.

As for "I AM WHAT I AM", I already said it before. It's literally just "I am myself" if we took it in a vacuum, and that doesn't really mean anything. I think more evidence beyond what you posted is necessary. God is apophatic for sure, but I don't think the evidence you've used qualifies. Cause if we took this into account, the number apophatic fictional characters on this wiki alone would be way higher