Who, In Marvel, Can Defeat the All-Father?

You can't destroy gas and space debris would account for about 1% of the mass of an entire galaxy. So i dont really understand how you go about destroying a dead galaxy considering its more or less void of anything.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Can anyone below a well-fed Galactus or Celestial defeat Odin?

No pre. It would have to be straight up. Not in Asgard, though.

Atum and Cosmic Cubes such as Kubik, Shaper of Worlds...

Way to change the rules. before you said there were dead planets, as in those who have no tectonic activity but would still be whole. Now you suddenly change it to basically a galaxy that's already destroyed.

A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space. The only way to destroy dead space is to populate it with a living galaxy. Its far easier to destroy than it is to create.

So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner. Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well. *shrugs*

Originally posted by Magee
You can't destroy gas and space debris would account for about 1% of the mass of an entire galaxy. So i dont really understand how you go about destroying a dead galaxy considering its more or less void of anything.

I pretty much agree.

But I don't think it was completely void.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to change the rules. before you said there were dead planets, as in those who have no tectonic activity but would still be whole. Now you suddenly change it to basically a galaxy that's already destroyed.

I never changed my stance, I amplified my answer.

Originally posted by Creshosk
A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space. The only way to destroy dead space is to populate it with a living galaxy. Its far easier to destroy than it is to create.

So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

A Dead Galaxy,

which is basically vacant due to it's Starless space, and shrinking dead Planets.

You said,

"A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space"

Is that so?

Here is Eternity/Death merged entering a Void, Empty.

This Empty Void ... is a Universe:

"dead space?" ❌

I think not.

Those Galaxies could have been just as empty,

and could still be called Galaxies or more accurately "Dead Galaxies."

Originally posted by Creshosk
You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner. Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well. *shrugs*

You must be under the impression that you've disputed my claim in some way.

Stay there and be happy. 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master
I never changed my stance, I amplified my answer.

Originally posted by Mr Master
So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

A Dead Galaxy,

which is basically vacant due to it's Starless space, and shrinking dead Planets.

[B]You said,

"A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space"

Is that so?

Here is Eternity/Death merged entering a Void, Empty.

This Empty Void ... is a Universe:

"dead space?" ❌

I think not.

Those Galaxies could have been just as empty,

and could still be called Galaxies or more accurately "Dead Galaxies."[/b]

Just outer space the size of a galaxy. Eesh...

Originally posted by Mr Master
You must be under the impression that you've disputed my claim in some way.

Stay there and be happy. 🙂

Common man, a little logic wouldn't hurt you. 😂

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's changing your answer.

No it's not, it's elaborating.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not void. Empty space. Not a universe either.

Just outer space the size of a galaxy. Eesh...

Same difference, Eesh...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Why else would you "amplify your answer"?

Common man, a little logic wouldn't hurt you.

I guess the debating is over.

Let's jump into sarcasm and snide remarks,

hmm, I'm not following you there. 🙂

Have fun.

Originally posted by Mr Master
No it's not, it's elaborating.

🤨 That is changing what you mean.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I guess the debating is over.

Let's jump into sarcasm and snide remarks,

hmm, I'm not following you there. 🙂

Have fun.

You seem to do a good amount of that on your own 😬

Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void.

Here's one place were you change your answer:

Originally posted by Mr Master
Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.

This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe.

And back

Originally posted by Mr Master
When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead"

And forth

Originally posted by Mr Master
Gases, dust, space debris and shrinking dead Planets.

Then again,

they were, "Long dead Galaxies'

so perhaps by that time they were basically empty.

Oh whats this? Suddenly we remove the planets like Mars, Mercury.. you know dead planets?

now its "basically empty" rather than just "no stars" Hmm...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Here's one place were you change your answer:

And back

And forth

Oh whats this? Suddenly we remove the planets like Mars, Mercury.. you know dead planets?

now its "basically empty" rather than just "no stars" Hmm...

All this is inconsequential.

Bottomline,

Odin can't mess with more than One Galaxy, and Seth with even less than that.

So when Odin and Seth destroy several "Dead galaxies"

It logically means the "Dead Galaxies" MUST be easier to destroy,

since neither can destroy more than one.

Originally posted by Mr Master
All this is inconsequential.

Bottomline,

Odin can't mess with more than One Galaxy, and Seth with even less than that.

So when Odin and Seth destroy several "Dead galaxies"

It logically means the "Dead Galaxies" MUST be easier to destroy,

since neither can destroy more than one.

And just a second ago you called it PIS.

🤣

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is changing what you mean.

Elaborate - from websters dictionary.

"add more detail concerning what has already been said"

🤨

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to do a good amount of that on your own

I don't remember insulting anyone in this thread.

This is the second time you come at me with negativity,

you got a problem?

PM me, or tell a Mod.

But don't come out your face unprovoked, this is the SECOND time that I See you doing it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh, so now when it suits your argument its valid?

What's inconsequential is you actually taking the time to go into all my posts to nip pick at the expansion of my statements.

That's actually funny. 😂 You thought you made me look silly but you didn't.

As far as the debate is concerned, you lost me when you began to insult me for NO reason whatsoever,

oh wait,

cause I disagree with you and I have an argument for doing so.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And just a second ago you called it PIS.

What happened , happened.

But I agreed with Bran it was pissy.

Originally posted by Mr Master
What's inconsequential is you actually taking the time to go into all my posts to nip pick at the expansion of my statements.

Originally posted by Mr Master
That's actually funny. 😂 You thought you made me look silly but you didn't.

As far as the debate is concerned, you lost me when you began to insult me for NO reason whatsoever,

oh wait,

cause I disagree with you and I have an argument for doing so.

Originally posted by Mr Master
What happened , happened.

But I agreed with Bran it was pissy.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Elaborate - from websters dictionary.

"add more detail concerning what has already been said"

🤨

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its called providing proof. I claimed you changed your definition. Then I provided proof of it.

You did no such thing.

All you did was show me elaborating.

Thanx for your concern.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If that's what you choose to believe, so be it.

Same can be said for you dude.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Either something happed and its not pis, or something is pis and is therefore discarded. Which will it be?

It's Canon PIS.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Adding to is one thing, you removed information and added different information. Mutatis mutandis.

As you wish.

Originally posted by Mr Master
You did no such thing.

All you did was show me elaborating.

Thanx for your concern.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Same can be said for you dude.

Originally posted by Mr Master
It's Canon PIS.

Originally posted by Mr Master
As you wish.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No I showed how you changed your answer. Not "elaborating."

Wrong!

I say that with confidence homie.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If that's what you really want to think.

Well you thought you taught me something, so I suppose we're both lost.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You are aware of the rules of this forum, are you not?

?

Originally posted by Creshosk
I wish for the truth. And that is what it is.

"The truth?"

Let's examine your truth.

My first Two Posts:

Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void.

Same shit up top,

You said I changed my answer below:

Originally posted by Mr Master
Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.

This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe.

How is this changing my answer? 😆

Obviously in order to extinguish a Star you have to negate it's Stellar Energies,

hence "obliterating it's energies into nothingness" ... 😬

You said I went back here:

Originally posted by Mr Master
When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead"

But I'm still saying the SAME shit.

No Stars = Dead galaxy (what I said from the beginning)

I supposedly went forward again: hum

Originally posted by Mr Master
Gases, dust, space debris and shrinking dead Planets.

Then again,

they were, "Long dead Galaxies'

so perhaps by that time they were basically empty.

I'm still saying the SAME shit I said in my first Post,

I only added the realization that they were, "Long Dead galaxies"

so perhaps these Galaxies are more or less empty anyway,

because Planets shrink gradually without sustenance from Stars.

You got a bit too excited dude. 🙂

Let's get back on topic now, shall we.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Wrong!

I say that with confidence homie.

Okay I won't finish that idiom.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Well you thought you taught me something, so I suppose we're both lost.

Originally posted by Mr Master

?

Originally posted by Mr Master
"The truth?"

Let's examine your truth.

My first Two Posts:

Same shit up top,

You said I changed my answer below:

How is this changing my answer? 😆

Obviously in order to extinguish a Star you have to negate it's Stellar Energies,

hence "obliterating it's energies into nothingness" ... 😬

You said I went back here:

But I'm still saying the SAME shit.

No Stars = Dead galaxy (what I said from the beginning)

I supposedly went forward again: hum

I'm still saying the SAME shit I said in my first Post,

I only added the realization that they were, "Long Dead galaxies"

so perhaps these Galaxies are more or less empty anyway,

because Planets shrink gradually without sustenance from Stars.

"truth?" 😏

Originally posted by Creshosk
Asserting something that's false with confidence is a sure sign of an-

Okay I won't finish that idiom.

Not saying anything, finished or not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I never said I taught you anything.

First here:

Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't think you get my point.

And you seem to knot want to grasp the concept

of utilizing the resources available to you in the destruction goal.

I'm obtuse because I disagree with your opinion.

Here you get real cocky .... You even add an Insult:

Originally posted by Creshosk
You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner.

Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well.

shrug

Originally posted by Creshosk
Guess not. Oh, well. Still funny that you call it PIS and then try to use it.

I'm not trying to use anything,

I didn't even bring that Feat up.

That's inconsequential to me.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not surprised that you cannot correctly analyze what you said. You're in denial. at least you called your argument shit for the shit they are.

At this point you have nothing left.

You've succumbed to insulting without provocation,

this is a sign of frustration,

cause you have no further point of significance to add to the debate.

My thing is to debate Comics, this verbal battle is probably your strong suit,

so I'll let you be.

You know that even if all of the stars and planets in a galaxy were destroyed, the matter and energy that they were made of would still be there, unless something actually took it and removed it from the area where the galaxy used to be.

So it would have the same mass and be just as difficult to destroy.