- 75
- 16
You accepted Peach statement even when it sounded illogical, putting the burden on the starmaker. I responded to both of you.DMUA said:Exactly
So why did you respond to me commenting on someone commenting about making multiple outerverses
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You accepted Peach statement even when it sounded illogical, putting the burden on the starmaker. I responded to both of you.DMUA said:Exactly
So why did you respond to me commenting on someone commenting about making multiple outerverses
^Tony di bugalu said:Why is this being "debated" when in the Rein thread nobody could prove some "infinite" level of transcendence?
>DMUA said:>These sorts of middle fingers to cosmology are supposed to be reserved for FC/OC
>"Accepted"
U wot
That's not how 1-A works.BleedingPeach said:The thing about Trascendence is you are or you are not trascendant. For example: Yato is trascendental and has a very high AP but Hajun has muuuuch more AP but isn't more trascendant than Yato. Both are trascendantal and yet Trascendence isn't measured in levels.
Yato's law allows him to stop "time", but the thing is that for The Maker eight thousand years are just an instant. Yato could stop time in a way that everything bellow the Throne could be stopped (maybe above too sans Hajun). The Maker isn't even bounded by dualities (likely cause and effect) and all its hax are more likely abstract. For something that could create dimensionless cosmosses, control math, the effect of laws and all these cosmosses didn't reach an end... they just keep "existing".
Maybe this is really a stomp but for The Maker in this case.
Please do. I've asked for proof and a rebuttal since the Reinhard match.ZacharyGrossman273 said:You know what? I could argue more about how high the Star Maker is, but I'm not going to, because I know for a fact neither side will ever concede and these matches will go nowhere.
What does any of this have anything to do with what I wrote?BleedingPeach said:If the story didn't use the word "'trascendence'" and the being is above even dimensions, causality, concepts and such, that should be considered 'trascendence'. "Perhaps the ultimate flower is also the primal seed from which all sprang. Perhaps the final result of the cosmical process is the attainment of full cosmical consciousness, and yet (in some very queer way) what is attained in the end is also, from another point of view, the origin of all things. So to speak, God, who created all things in the beginning, is himself created by all things in the end." (Extracted from here)
You asked for proofs about trascendence, I was just quoting the text.Warren Valion said:What does any of this have anything to do with what I wrote?
No one is arguing whether Star Maker is 1-A or not. He (It?) definitely is 1-A.
What is being argued is the level of 1-A that Star Maker exists at.
Anyway, I am going to sleep.
Goodnight @everyone.
Exactamente, no tienes idea de lo feliz que me pongo cuando encuentro a más personas que hablan español.BleedingPeach said:No borres el comentario, Tony. Siempre es grato escuchar (no, sera "leer"?) a alguien que habla su idioma natal![]()