• 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.
if you get isekaied and you get to choose one nasuverse hax, what will it be? Note: Void shiki's ability is not allowed since it allows you to access ALL the hax. You can have only 1
It's not exactly a Hax, but Atlas spells/kit, to me, are just awesome.
You really don't need to be the strongest if you can create the strongest weapon.

It's not overpowered like Kaleidoscope Magic Square of "infinite magic energy", but it can be used in every situation, even outside of battle.
 
It's just not. The setting literally doesn't care for that thesis.
I'm sure it doesn't, perhaps that's why the root is referred to as " ", oh wait that is a representation of the ineffability thesis who could tell? I totally didn't.

But I don't really care for nasuverse scaling especially in this wiki, if it doesn't. Then let the root be High 1-C because it doesn't have negative theology then simple.
I will bring apophatic to staff discussion thread later, shit will be same as omnipotent and tier 0 R>F.
Lmao
She has always been Wuji . If you can't differentiate the analogy from the original, don't use analogies...
Seems kinda self defeating if we go by your interpretation.
Therefore, the ineffable aspect of God is defined as the separate part. It's not so ineffable.
It's not defined as that tho? If one cannot have predicates then the predicate of being wholeness doesn't apply to it, that's why contemporary negative theology distinguishes between those aspects its self referential for it to be seperated from the wholeness aspect.
tautological logic.
Tf does tautological logic even mean, you mean tautology?

I'll show you how that supports what I'm saying, if we have aspect P that's ineffable and we have another aspect of God that's wholeness, because wholeness is not ineffable it cannot be one with the aspect P which is ineffable, why? Because it's not P, P is ineffable and P is ineffable if and only if it's ineffable because if it's not ineffable then it's not P.

P self references P, hence T(P⇔ P), P being ineffable which is true means P is ineffable if and only if its ineffable. A philosopher that actually studies negative theology would know know this, hence why in contemporary negative theology the wholeness aspect of God doesn't apply to the Ineffable one. It doesn't imply that the Ineffable aspect has that description. It is simply because the Ineffable aspect cannot have descriptions and predicates applied to it. Wholeness is well defined in theological philosophy and is part of intelligibility hence it cannot be P as such P is distinguished from wholeness.

Simple "tautological logic".
Quotes where said thesis is invoked
The root being " " directly invokes it.
You seem to think you studied it enough, but you keep defining something you say is "ineffable" without even seeing you are doing so... If it's so ineffable
I thought it was obvious how I was not doin that when I mentioned the ineffability thesis skull emoji_61.

Calling it ineffable is not enough to captured it being ineffable that's the entire point of the thesis, didn't think I'd have to spell that out too.
the only answer you should be able to provide is absolute silence.
That's literally why I mentioned the thesis, to demonstrate how not so "self defeating" it is.
(Which was an answer used, both in Taoism and Christianity, actually.)
Thanks for the information, I totally didn't directly posit the absolute silence point by calling out its name cough cough

The thesis.
No.
No.
No.
wait, so a non apophatic being can be scaled to an apophatic being....? that is weird.
Yes, if the scaling isn't supposed to be physical and only hax like shiki that's fine.
No he didn't. His "adressing" of it is a description in disguise.
Oh dear lord, want me to define the ineffability thesis for you now?

I thought just mentioning the name would be enough to solve the argument that utilizes the ineffability paradox "calling something ineffable, ineffable is a description hence its not ineffable and its self defeating" the ineffability thesis resolves that dear Christ I already brought this up beforehand, the ineffability thesis is not a description.
That's a pretty weird argument.
It's not an argument it's just the ineffability paradox.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t that lead to the issue of apophasis not being as infallible as people argued it to be? For example, if people are arguing it to be beyond tiering due to being impossible to describe and stuff, but someone that isnt Apophatic can scale on a similar level to that Apophatic entity, wouldn’t that put into question whether that apophasis is even much of a superiority to begin with?
 
but someone that isnt Apophatic can scale on a similar level to that Apophatic entity
It's not scaling to it, it's the ability to utilize something that's ineffable in a hax way, she doesn't physically scale to the root atleast that's how I interpret it.

Any other interpretation suggesting otherwise is a direct contradiction to negative theology tho I do agree.
wouldn’t that put into question whether that apophasis is even much of a superiority to begin with?
Eh
 
It's not scaling to it, it's the ability to utilize something that's ineffable in a hax way, she doesn't physically scale to the root atleast that's how I interpret it.
It's downscaling from it and the question was related to hax scaling to it. It's a bit of a weird case imo, but I think we can leave it at that.
 
IoeK7aAYQDk.jpg
hMq8rEUms4s.jpg

Oh boy, oh boy!
 
and there is still a small chance that Dreamlands will still be able to scale to Low 1-A for Yog-Sothoth and High 1-B for Abby since I found a clue where it could be said.

EDIT:
RBmsstErX3g.jpg
 
I have a strong feeling that it's fake because I couldn't even find it on atlasacademy via searching with supposed raws or just specific kanji.
Didn't find it in fgo wiki's list but I might have just overlooked it.. Might want to ask him which servant has the interlude.
I asked him for the name of the servant who owns this interlude. I think he used a translator, which is why the name came out incorrect.
 
I have already viewed this one (screenshots are also from there). Just in the interlude I'm looking for, there may be an argument that will confirm that Dreamlands has properties that are suitable for High 1-B
Don't know what you are trying to say, Abigail only have one interlude "A Dream of a Thousand Stars and One Hundred Nights", there don't exist any interlude called Little Lady's Cowardice.
 
Don't know what you are trying to say, Abigail only have one interlude "A Dream of a Thousand Stars and One Hundred Nights", there don't exist any interlude called Little Lady's Cowardice.
i know that Abby have only one interlude, but this guy said that description of Dreamlands was produced by the Summer Abby in some interlude. I think that she could appear in interlude of other servant. Anyway, let's just wait for his answer.
 
Back
Top