Proteus versus Mad Jim Jaspers

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Sure it doesn't, but apparently you don't quite know what that is.

An argument from silence makes a conclusion based on a lack of given information. I didn't make a conclusion, I was simply asking whether I could treat his non-reply as him conceding the argument.

I didn't say: "because you haven't replied, it means that you therefore concede the argument"

^That would be an argument from silence, know what you're talking about, fool.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
There's nothing to admit.

Use a word wrongly, and it's a fair assumption. Hyperbole is only used when the meaning is not fixed, and up for variation.

Really? Doesn't look like the stipulation is in the dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hyperbole
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hyperbole?view=uk
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38703&dict=CALD
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole&r=66

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
"Possibly the most powerful being in creation," actually, and no, that quite simply couldn't be hyperbole, considering the fixed meaning of the sentence.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
"Further supporting the fact that it's not hyperbole is the fact that in the same definitive "What If?" future that Proteus is labelled as such, he is stated to at some point be responsible for the end of creation.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
How many beings have been called this? None in a place outside of space-time where "Creation" would be taking into account the entire Omniverse from the perspective of a group of Super Heroes that deal with mentioned Omniverse..

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Saying that he's more powerful simply because he has displayed such is as fallacious as it gets. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Provide proof of the necessity or drop the point. In case you didn't get that, I'm telling you that unless there is a need to display such a level of power, the fact that one doesn't means nothing.

Want me to cite you the rule? I'll be more than happy to oblige.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
As already explained, Proteus' immediate goal after learning of the countless other Realities was to find the perfect host to contain his power, and he found that host in Morph (hell the fact that it took the body of a changeling to even contain his power speaks volumes alone). After doing so, The Exiles shortly restrained him with a device that buried all of Proteus' memories and personalities (his own and the different people he had at once possessed) except for that of his current host's: Morph's. He, at that point in time, had no need for a mass display of his powers.

I'm well aware of ad ignorantiam. But its not excuse to say that your own claims do not require evidence for them to be true. Because just as its fallicious to say that something is false because there is no evidence for it. So is it falicious to say something is true because there
s no evidence against it.

However to refrain from exisitng in a state of eternal mental agnosticism one does require evidence to support ones claims. You claim the words of that comic to be true. Outside of the comic what evidence is there the words are true? Or could I likewise claim the bible is true because the bible says its true and claim ad ignorantiam should you challenge me to prove its true. As If evidence isn't needed then there would be truly no need for these debates as it'd all be opinion and speculation based off of nothing.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Verifying if your conclusion is right does not mean you didn't make a conclusion. You came to the conclusion that he had conceded from his lack of response. Had you not come to this conclusion you would not have asked as the thought wouldn't have crossed your mind.

Good lord you're dense. A conclusion is a decision that is absolutely reached. There's a difference between a thought or a feeling, and a conclusion. Making a logical assumption is not a conclusion. The fact that I was verifying it essentially shows that my judgement was not final. As I said, you're dense. Not to mention, you're arguing semantics when it's really not required. Fact remains, that an Argument from Silence reaches a final decision based on a lack of given information. That's not what I did, bottom line, and you apparently don't know how to point out Logical Fallacies.

Of course there isn't. Admiting that there was would give credence to you being a sock, which would then cause you to be banned.

I really don't care what you think, now drop this. I am not who you claim me to be.

Really? Doesn't look like the stipulation is in the dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hyperbole
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hyperbole?view=uk
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38703&dict=CALD
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole&r=66

What was that about using a word, and not doing it unless you knew what the word meant?

Oh I just love debating with morons. Apparently you haven't yet understood that such meanings are not directly spelt out in a word's definition but what can be inferred from such. Now as I've said, hyperbole as in an exaggeration needs there to be a varied meaning for which there are means to exaggerate a word.

For instance, look at this sentence: "I am a man!"

Would you argue that that would be hyperbole? Of course not, because it has a fixed meaning and no means to exaggerate the meaning.

Whereas for this sentence: "I am very manly!" that can be considered hyperbolic simply because there's a degree of variance in the meaning of the word "very."

Circular reasoning. The comic is true because the comic says its true.

As you've been constantly showing, you know nothing about argumentation. Circular Reasoning assumes that the conclusion is correct in one of the major premises that the conclusion is dependant on.

For instance:

Conclusion: All humans are intelligent.

Premise 1: Dave, as a human, is intelligent.

Premise 2: There is not one human that is less intelligent than Dave.

Here, Premise 1 is relying on the conclusion being already correct before being able to prove such a thing.

My argument was absolutely logical, and completely different from that. I was simply saying that the statement which has Proteus eventually end Creation itself is quite clearly putting him on a high level of power, which supports the accuracy of the statement which you labelled an exaggeration.

Speculation.

No, it's a fact. No comic has had the Omniscient Narrator speak of such a character in such a light from the same perspective.

Or I could just cite you the forum rle that you're breaking about how evidence is needed when you make the claim. You're claiming what was said in the comic was true. Where's your evidence that it is true?

Want me to cite you the rule? I'll be more than happy to oblige.

OTher than as evidence of your claims. Sounds like you're trying to get out of proving those words true.

I'm well aware of ad ignorantiam. But its not excuse to say that your own claims do not require evidence for them to be true. Because just as its fallicious to say that something is false because there is no evidence for it. So is it falicious to say something is true because there
s no evidence against it.

However to refrain from exisitng in a state of eternal mental agnosticism one does require evidence to support ones claims. You claim the words of that comic to be true. Outside of the comic what evidence is there the words are true? Or could I likewise claim the bible is true because the bible says its true and claim ad ignorantiam should you challenge me to prove its true. As If evidence isn't needed then there would be truly no need for these debates as it'd all be opinion and speculation based off of nothing.

Apparently you've misunderstood what I was arguing.

I wasn't saying that Proteus is at such a level of power because there isn't any proof that he isn't. That would be fallacious, I know that, I don't need an amateur in debate to tell me that. I was simply tackling the claim that Proteus is not at such a level of power simply because he hasn't displayed it. Such is fallacious, unless one can point out a need for displaying such things, yet still not doing so.

My evidence for Proteus however, is something I have supplied in the form of quotes, which is essentially the Omniscient Narrator (aka All Knowing Being; what he says = fact) claiming that Proteus may be the most powerful being in creation, and that if he were to have regained his memories at a given time, he would have destroyed the entire Omniverse. That evidence alone puts Proteus right on up there with the true Elites such as The Living Tribunal, and logically puts him above Jaspers as well.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega

Good lord you're dense. A conclusion is a decision that is absolutely reached. There's a difference between a thought or a feeling, and a conclusion. Making a logical assumption is not a conclusion. The fact that I was verifying it essentially shows that my judgement was not final. As I said, you're dense. Not to mention, you're arguing semantics when it's really not required. Fact remains, that an Argument from Silence reaches a final decision based on a lack of given information. That's not what I did, bottom line, and you apparently don't know how to point out Logical Fallacies.

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you made a mistake rather than try hard and only wind up making an ass out of yourself?

Oh right, you didn't make a mistake. 🙄

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
I really don't care what you think, now drop this. I am not who you claim me to be.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Oh I just love debating with morons. Apparently you haven't yet understood that such meanings are not directly spelt out in a word's definition

Not your words exactly... but you gotta admit, you're weasiling is cute.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
but what can be inferred from such. Now as I've said, hyperbole as in an exaggeration needs there to be a varied meaning for which there are means to exaggerate a word.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
For instance, look at this sentence: "I am a man!"

Would you argue that that would be hyperbole? Of course not, because it has a fixed meaning and no means to exaggerate the meaning.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Whereas for this sentence: "I am very manly!" that can be considered hyperbolic simply because there's a degree of variance in the meaning of the word "very."

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
As you've been constantly showing, you know nothing about argumentation. Circular Reasoning assumes that the conclusion is correct in one of the major premises that the conclusion is dependant on.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
For instance:

Conclusion: All humans are intelligent.

Premise 1: Dave, as a human, is intelligent.

Premise 2: There is not one human that is less intelligent than Dave.

Here, Premise 1 is relying on the conclusion being already correct before being able to prove such a thing.

My argument was absolutely logical, and completely different from that.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
I was simply saying that the statement which has Proteus eventually end Creation itself is quite clearly putting him on a high level of power, which supports the accuracy of the statement which you labelled an exaggeration.

Conclusion: Proteus is as powerful as they say he is.

Premise 1: They said he was.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
No, it's a fact. No comic has had the Omniscient Narrator speak of such a character in such a light from the same perspective.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Apparently you've misunderstood what I was arguing.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
I wasn't saying that Proteus is at such a level of power because there isn't any proof that he isn't.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
That would be fallacious, I know that, I don't need an amateur in debate to tell me that. I was simply tackling the claim that Proteus is not at such a level of power simply because he hasn't displayed it. Such is fallacious, unless one can point out a need for displaying such things, yet still not doing so.

From the trules thread:
No Bias Claims
"Batman can beat Thor because he's cooler!" That's an example of how not to debate. We would like to see the rationale behind any claims that one character can beat the other rather than a claim based on popularity and subjective bias.
Also, we insist that all claims be backed up by evidence from canon sources. If you claim that Spiderman is stronger than Superman, then you have to prove it.

There's your need. It's in the forum rules that you agree to by posting blah blah... usuall TOS stuff.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
My evidence for Proteus however, is something I have supplied in the form of quotes, which is essentially the Omniscient Narrator (aka All Knowing Being; what he says = fact) claiming that Proteus may be the most powerful being in creation,

"He's the most powerful being because they say he's the most powerful being."

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
and that if he were to have regained his memories at a given time, he would have destroyed the entire Omniverse. That evidence alone puts Proteus right on up there with the true Elites such as The Living Tribunal, and logically puts him above Jaspers as well. [/B]

Originally posted by Mr Master
You're a real snake Nvr,
we haven't quarreled with animosity in a long time,
I been treating you with patience & respect for a while now, (even in disagreements)
and yet
you have to side with cats that enter threads just to vainly attempt to besmirch my name.

Cool, do what you do, I won't bite back in that manner. 🙂

This is supposed to be fun.

Originally posted by Horrificus
By the way, the fact that you used the word "besmirch" outside of a court of law is truly frightening. 😕

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=besmirch
🙂

Dude, "Possibly the strongest being in creation" means NOTHING. If you had to follow every narration as fact, then Blackbolt is the second most powerful being in the galaxy.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes, because rhetorical quesitions don't exist. 🙄

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you made a mistake rather than try hard and only wind up making an ass out of yourself?

Oh right, you didn't make a mistake. 🙄

LMAO!! 😆 😆

You truly are one Grade A dumbass Creshosk. I actually can't believe you're still typing, you've actually been wrong on every single point in this thread.

A rhetorical question is asked in the sense that the answer is obvious, and not needed to be given. Asking whether Mr Master's lack of a response was an indication of him conceding is not a rhetorical question.

OF course you're not, if you were you'd get banned, and since you don't want that its better to lie about it.

Quit the trolling. I'm not who you claim me to be, drop it.

Words don't mean what they're defined to mean. 😆
Not your words exactly... but you gotta admit, you're weasiling is cute.

Nice Strawman!! 👆

Definitions don't have to elaborate into every way in which the word can be used if it's inherently there in the definition in the first place.

Exaggerations only exist when there are means at which to vary the degree of the meaning.

Because the dictionaries are wrong and you are right...

Nice Strawman!! 👆

Definitions don't have to elaborate into every way in which the word can be used if it's inherently there in the definition in the first place.

Exaggerations only exist when there are means at which to vary the degree of the meaning.

No, it's not a hyperbole because it needs something to exagerate... unless you're a boy it wouldn't be an exaggeration. But that doesn't change the fact that "The most powerful being in all of creation" is an exaggeration.

Firstly, please at least try and get the quote correct. Possibly.

Secondly, both cases are parallel. Neither sentence has a variance in meaning to twist. They both have fixed meanings.

What's being exagerated?

I didn't actually say that it was definitely an exaggeration, but that it was subject to it. "Very" as a word does not have a fixed meaning. It's relative. "Very manly" begs the question: "just how manly?" The degree of manliness an be twisted into an exaggeration.

Which is what you're doing... oh wait no you're not, you'd never make a mistake...

No, I'm not. Firstly, I'm not even making a definite conclusion here anyway, but claiming that what the narration has Proteus go to do (ends creation) puts him on a level of power that supports the accuracy of the other statement (that he was possibly the most powerful being in creation at the time) is not circular reasoning. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and it's because you're an amateur at logic.

Denial is an ugly thing. 🙂

As is illogic.

So...

Conclusion: Proteus is as powerful as they say he is.

Premise 1: They said he was.

LMAO. You're a funny guy. Apparently you haven't quite realise the whole concept behind the Omniscient Narrator.

He is all knowing. What he says = fact.

Omniscient Narrator says that Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation, and that he would go on to end Creation in a definitive "What If?" future.

The idea that Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation, and that he would go on to end Creation in a definitive "What If?" future = fact by default.

Arguing against the Omniscient Narrator is as good as denying what the comics shows us.

This is not circular logic, but simple, absolute truth.

Sure they haven't. Because its a neccesity to put on the qualifier "In the light from the same perspective". Which isn't even mentioned in the comics in order for your point to be valid. AS you are adding on infference that wasn't in the comics.. you are speculating.

Apparently you didn't get my point. When such statements are made within a reality, unless there is a direct reference to the other Realities, it would only apply to that Reality. Proteus' statement is made outside of space-time, from the perspective of a group that deals with the entire Omniverse. Meaning that it applies to the entire Omniverse, where other such quotes mostly don't.

Sure I have, the mistake is always on my part, never on yours.

One of the few correct things you've said.

Then how about you prove it? Without any of that circular reasoning you didn't do before.

LMAO!! Supplying a quote from the Omniscient Narrator is not Circular Reasoning.

From the trules thread:
No Bias Claims
"Batman can beat Thor because he's cooler!" That's an example of how not to debate. We would like to see the rationale behind any claims that one character can beat the other rather than a claim based on popularity and subjective bias.
Also, we insist that all claims be backed up by evidence from canon sources. If you claim that Spiderman is stronger than Superman, then you have to prove it.

There's your need. It's in the forum rules that you agree to by posting blah blah... usuall TOS stuff.

LOL. Again, completely misunderstanding what I've been saying. I was saying that unless Proteus possessed a need to display something, the fact that he doesn't in no way says that he can't.

You've either chosen to again ignore my argument, or have once again missed what I was saying as well by the looks of it.

There's that circular reasoning thing you weren't doing before again.

"He's the most powerful being because they say he's the most powerful being."

And your evidence that its true is the fact they said it was... nice... No circular reasoning there. I mean you're not using that which is in question as evidence of your claims or anything...

Again, know the meaning of terms before using them. What you're saying is tantamount to me accusing you of Circular Reasoning simply because you're providing indisputable evidence from the comics.

The Omniscient Narrator is all knowing. Everything he says is true (unless retconned). He says Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in creation, and would have ended creation had he regained his memories, ergo, such is the case. Quit arguing with canon.

MJJ stomps Proteus.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega

LMAO!! 😆 😆

You truly are one Grade A dumbass Creshosk. I actually can't believe you're still typing, you've actually been wrong on every single point in this thread.

A rhetorical question is asked in the sense that the answer is obvious, and not needed to be given. Asking whether Mr Master's lack of a response was an indication of him conceding is not a rhetorical question.

Hell, you even argued against a dictionary definition, adding on more than was there. But keep dancing your antics amuse me so. 🙂

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Quit the trolling. I'm not who you claim me to be, drop it.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Nice Strawman!! 👆

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Definitions don't have to elaborate into every way in which the word can be used if it's inherently there in the definition in the first place.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Exaggerations only exist when there are means at which to vary the degree of the meaning.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Nice Strawman!! 👆

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Definitions don't have to elaborate into every way in which the word can be used if it's inherently there in the definition in the first place.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Exaggerations only exist when there are means at which to vary the degree of the meaning.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Firstly, please at least try and get the quote correct. Possibly.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Secondly, both cases are parallel. Neither sentence has a variance in meaning to twist. They both have fixed meanings.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
I didn't actually say that it was definitely an exaggeration, but that it was subject to it. "Very" as a word does not have a fixed meaning. It's relative. "Very manly" begs the question: "just how manly?" The degree of manliness an be twisted into an exaggeration.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
No, I'm not. Firstly, I'm not even making a definite conclusion here anyway, but claiming that what the narration has Proteus go to do (ends creation) puts him on a level of power that supports the accuracy of the other statement (that he was possibly the most powerful being in creation at the time) is not circular reasoning.[/b[]/quote] You're using that which is in question as evidence to prove that which is in question. Yeah, circular reasoning.

[QUOTE=9858980]Originally posted by Ultra Omega
You don't actually know what you're talking about,

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
and it's because you're an amateur at logic.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
As is illogic.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
LMAO. You're a funny guy. Apparently you haven't quite realise the whole concept behind the Omniscient Narrator.

Among those is the concept of what makes good writing, or debate.

I notice a distinct lack of coraborating evidence to your claims... I gave you the need. Because its in the rules.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
He is all knowing. What he says = fact.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Omniscient Narrator

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
says that Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation, and that he would go on to end Creation in a definitive "What If?" future.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
The idea that Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation, and that he would go on to end Creation in a definitive "What If?" future = fact by default.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Arguing against the Omniscient Narrator is as good as denying what the comics shows us.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
This is not circular logic, but simple, absolute truth.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Apparently you didn't get my point. When such statements are made within a reality, unless there is a direct reference to the other Realities, it would only apply to that Reality.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Proteus' statement is made outside of space-time, from the perspective of a group that deals with the entire Omniverse. Meaning that it applies to the entire Omniverse, where other such quotes mostly don't.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
One of the few correct things you've said.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
LMAO!! Supplying a quote from the Omniscient Narrator is not Circular Reasoning.

"The Bible is true, cause god wrote the bible, and we know that god wrote the bible because it says in the bibel that god wrote the bible, so therefore the bible is true"

The comic is true cause the comic said the comic is true.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
LOL. Again, completely misunderstanding what I've been saying. I was saying that unless Proteus possessed a need to display something, the fact that he doesn't in no way says that he can't.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
You've either chosen to again ignore my argument, or have once again missed what I was saying as well by the looks of it.

So there's nothing VALID that you've said so far. Alot of weasling, with excuses and invalid arguments you've given a bounty of.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
Again, know the meaning of terms before using them. What you're saying is tantamount to me accusing you of Circular Reasoning simply because you're providing indisputable evidence from the comics.

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
The Omniscient Narrator is all knowing. Everything he says is true (unless retconned). He says Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in creation, and would have ended creation had he regained his memories, ergo, such is the case. Quit arguing with canon. [/B]

"The comic's true because the comic says it's true."

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
The Omniscient Narrator is all knowing. Everything he says is true (unless retconned). He says Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in creation, and would have ended creation had he regained his memories, ergo, such is the case. Quit arguing with canon.

In this case, it's clearly wrong because Proteus hasn't displayed anything on that level.

Hasn't the narrator said that Hulk is the strongest being in creation?
Hulk>LT in strength.

But wait, Thor was said to equal Hulk I believe, so...
Thor=Hulk>LT.

But hold on, LT is second to God, so it would go like this:
Thor=Hulk>LT>Thor=Hulk.

But, that would automatically make Hulk and Thor God though, wouldn't it, because they are the strongest in creation, so the real list would be:
Thor=Hulk>LT>everyone else, and everyone else being Bi-Beast, and Odin.

But wait, Bi-Beast has beaten Hulk more often than they have stalemated, and Hulk's never beaten him one on one (to my knowledge), and Odin is way stronger than Thor, so...
Odin=Bi-Beast>Thor=Hulk>LT>Odin and Bi-Beast in strength?

Crap, Odin said that Galactus rivals his own omnipotent might (and I believe the omnipotent narrator said it as well)! So...

So, Richards, where exactly does it end?

Also, where did the omnipotent narrator say this about P-dog? The burden of proof is on you. 🙂

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
the statement "possibly the most powerful being in creation" still stands,
which would put Proteus in the same league as beings like the Living Tribunal.

Originally posted by Creshosk
OTher than as evidence of your claims. Sounds like you're trying to get out of proving those words true.

I'm well aware of ad ignorantiam. But its not excuse to say that your own claims do not require evidence for them to be true. Because just as its fallicious to say that something is false because there is no evidence for it. So is it falicious to say something is true because there
is no evidence against it.

However to refrain from exisitng in a state of eternal mental agnosticism one does require evidence to support ones claims. You claim the words of that comic to be true. Outside of the comic what evidence is there the words are true? Or could I likewise claim the bible is true because the bible says its true and claim ad ignorantiam should you challenge me to prove its true. As If evidence isn't needed then there would be truly no need for these debates as it'd all be opinion and speculation based off of nothing.

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
Hasn't the narrator said that Hulk is the strongest being in creation?
Hulk>LT in strength.

But wait, Thor was said to equal Hulk I believe, so...
Thor=Hulk>LT.

But hold on, LT is second to God, so it would go like this:
Thor=Hulk>LT>Thor=Hulk.

But, that would automatically make Hulk and Thor God though, wouldn't it, because they are the strongest in creation, so the real list would be:
Thor=Hulk>LT>everyone else, and everyone else being Bi-Beast, and Odin.

But wait, Bi-Beast has beaten Hulk more often than they have stalemated, and Hulk's never beaten him one on one (to my knowledge), and Odin is way stronger than Thor, so...
Odin=Bi-Beast>Thor=Hulk>LT>Odin and Bi-Beast in strength?

Crap, Odin said that Galactus rivals his own omnipotent might (and I believe the omnipotent narrator said it as well)! So...

So, Richards, where exactly does it end?

Also, where did the omnipotent narrator say this about P-dog? The burden of proof is on you. 🙂

✅ 😆

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
Hasn't the narrator said that Hulk is the strongest being in creation?
Hulk>LT in strength.

But wait, Thor was said to equal Hulk I believe, so...
Thor=Hulk>LT.

But hold on, LT is second to God, so it would go like this:
Thor=Hulk>LT>Thor=Hulk.

But, that would automatically make Hulk and Thor God though, wouldn't it, because they are the strongest in creation, so the real list would be:
Thor=Hulk>LT>everyone else, and everyone else being Bi-Beast, and Odin.

But wait, Bi-Beast has beaten Hulk more often than they have stalemated, and Hulk's never beaten him one on one (to my knowledge), and Odin is way stronger than Thor, so...
Odin=Bi-Beast>Thor=Hulk>LT>Odin and Bi-Beast in strength?

Crap, Odin said that Galactus rivals his own omnipotent might (and I believe the omnipotent narrator said it as well)! So...

So, Richards, where exactly does it end?

Look, I never said that words from an Omniscient Narrator weren't subject to retcon, which is what would happen to the quote you mentioned given the contradictory evidence. However, there is no such contradictory evidence for the one regarding Proteus, just supporting evidence, where Proteus then goes on to destroy the entire Omniverse. Meaning, unless you can prove that the quote would be retconned based on contradictory evidence, you have to accept it as fact.

Also, where did the omnipotent narrator say this about P-dog? The burden of proof is on you. 🙂

It's been provided about three times. Here's a hint: enter a thread, and read back a few pages. You might learn something! 👆

Originally posted by Ultra Omega

Look, I never said that words from an Omniscient Narrator weren't subject to retcon, which is what would happen to the quote you mentioned given the contradictory evidence. However, there is no such contradictory evidence for the one regarding Proteus, just supporting evidence, where Proteus then goes on to destroy the entire Omniverse. Meaning, unless you can prove that the quote would be retconned based on contradictory evidence, you have to accept it as fact. [/B]

Plus, when did he destroy the omniverse?

Also, when did Hulk get ret-conned into not being the strongest there is? It's only actual showings that disprove this, and not the omniversal narrator. Apparently, showings don't negate what the omniversal narrator say. 🙂

Originally posted by Ultra Omega
It's been provided about three times. Here's a hint: enter a thread, and read back a few pages. You might learn something! 👆 [/B]

Originally posted by King Kandy
Dude, "Possibly the strongest being in creation" means NOTHING. If you had to follow every narration as fact, then Blackbolt is the second most powerful being in the galaxy.

And Thor has been stated to be the strongest man in creation.

Just like Odin is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
What about this?
Proteus has never shown it. 🙂

He doesn't need to show it. It's stated on panel that that was what he was going to do.

Plus, when did he destroy the omniverse?

All shall be revealed.

Also, when did Hulk get ret-conned into not being the strongest there is? It's only actual showings that disprove this, and not the omniversal narrator. Apparently, showings don't negate what the omniversal narrator say. 🙂

Don't twist my words. When showings firmly depict limits for a character, then they can be used to say that another is definitely more powerful. But when they don't, and people try and put Jaspers over Proteus because he's displayed more, it's fallacious beyond belief. Proteus didn't need to display more. He had been searching for a perfect host to contain his power; that was his top priority goal, any kind of mass display of power wasn't on his agenda. In fact, the very Exiles #90 would support that line of thought as well:

Exiles #90, Enemies of the Stars Part 1 (of 5):

First Page: "The mind and soul are those of Kevin Mactaggart, also known as Proteus, quite possibly the most powerful being in Creation."

"Today, once and for all, he means to prove it."

So clearly he had no need to have ever proven it in the past, yet when he feels he need to, he absolutely demolishes the Exiles, crushes entire planets with his bare hands, and then goes on to destroy the entire Omniverse.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like reading through this thread entirely. I just want to see the scan, and not have to wade through everything. 🙂

Exiles #90, Enemies of the Stars Part 1 (of 5)

First Page: "For the Exiles, this is the way Creation ends."

Creation in this context would be the Omniverse, given it's being stated from an outside space-time observation, and the "for the Exiles" indicates such given that the Exiles deal with the entire Omniverse.

"The mind and soul are those of Kevin Mactaggart, also known as Proteus, quite possibly the most powerful being in Creation."

Here, The Omniscient Narrator is suggesting that it's highly likely that Proteus may be the most powerful being in the entire Omniverse, putting him in a league with beings like the Living Tribunal.

Both quotes are coming from the Omniscient Narrator, meaning that they are as much fact as are what the panels would depict for the storyline.

If you can provide contradictory, that's great, but until then, they're a part of canon, and arguing against them is arguing against canon.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The more you think little of my intelligence the more reassured of it I am. Because if you disagree with me then as far as I've seen I can't be wrong.

Hell, you even argued against a dictionary definition, adding on more than was there. But keep dancing your antics amuse me so. 🙂

Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between a conclusion and a thought.

I'm not the one trolling, sock.

Continuing to label me a sock when it has nothing to do with the topic is trolling, idiot.

I already said they weren't your words exactly... did you miss that part?

No, didn't miss it at all, however you were still distorting my stance into something easily defeated, which essentially is what a Strawman is.

😆 Excuses.

Translation: I have no counter argument whatsoever, so I will hereby post a laughing slimy so others might think that I'm not fuming behind my keyboard.

Exactly. "Most powerful being in creation" as there are other, not as powerful beings... or hell others were called the most powerful beng s in creation Without your assinine stipulations that didn't exist in the comics but have to be there so that you're right...

I don't even wanna know what you're babbling on about here, but the fact remains that the sentence: "Possibly the most powerful being in Creation" has a fixed meaning, and is not subject to hyperbole.

And no other being has been labelled as such from the observations of the entire Omniverse.

No, that would be a strawman. Did I say that you said that? No.

Don't be dense. You don't have to literally say that I'm saying such for it to be a Strawman. Fact of the matter is, your sarcastic comment is essentially distorting my argument into something easily defeated. You're making it seem like my argument is claiming that the dictionary is wrong, which is not the case. As I said, know your terms before using them.

Same ol' lame ol' excuse. The word isn't used the way you want it to be. Simple as.

No, you just apparently don't understand that exaggerations would not be applicable with statements that have a fixed meaning.

Like power?

You're still not getting this.

Possibly the most powerful being in Creation.

"Powerful," in this context, has a fixed meaning. It can only mean one thing: "possessing great power." In this context, there is no variance in the degree of "power," simply because the word "most" is setting up the extent of "power." As I said, you're a Grade A dumbass Creshosk.

I'm quoting from AFTER that point. Although that word weakens the certainty of the statement.

Didn't deny that, but that doesn't make it hyperbolic. It's simply questioning whether Proteus would possess such a status of power, yet suggesting that it's very likely at the same time.

Sure they do...

As already explained, they do. "Most Powerful being in Creation" is not subject to hyperbole, bottom line.

ITs a nice red herring but doesn't address the fact that "most powerful being in creation" (Possibly is meaningless other than to cast a certain ammount of uncertaintiy on the idea) is an exaggeration.

As already explaind, no.

Coming from the guy who has to change the dictionary definition of a word in order for it to agree with him...

No, it's coming from the guy who can understand complexities of definitions.

Thank you, coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Funny. You're trying to be clever, yet still failing. A compliment, by definition, would have the person handing the statement out consider what he's saying something positive. So, to recap, you fail at being a smartass. Unlucky.

Which you're an expert on using. But not recognizing.

Says the idiot who considers supplying words from an all knowing being circular reasoning.

Appearently you haven't grasped the whole concept behind.. well anything really.

Among those is the concept of what makes good writing, or debate.

I notice a distinct lack of coraborating evidence to your claims... I gave you the need. Because its in the rules.

This would mean so much more if you actually knew how to read. If you did, you'd noticed that I supplied the issue number, the exact quotes, the context of the quotes, as well as the page on which they appear in the comics.

And again, when I said "provide proof of the necessity" I was speaking in reference to Proteus, and him not displaying what would be consistent with his given status. Simply because he hasn't displays such means nothing unless you can prove that he would have needed to, yet still didn't.

And What qualifies this one as being all knowing? Because you say so? More cicular reasoning abounds.

Can I see a bio for "Omniscent Narrator"?

Well, I knew comic book versus forumites were supposed to be somewhat lacking in the brain department, but I had no idea that they could be this thick. Seriously, I'm actually kinda blown away. I feel like I'm talking to a ten year old. Now, for the forum retards, the Omniscient Narrator, in Literature, is he who exists outside of the story, and provides it. He essentially tells us the story, and as such, in respect to the story, his word is infallible. Denying his words in the comics is as good as denying the artists colouring the X-Men's Beast blue.

More circular reasoning.

According to circular reasoning sure...

If you actually knew what Circular Reasoning was, this might actually mean something. Again, what you're accusing me of would be like me accusing you of labelling the Beast blue as circular reasoning.

Which so far is MJJ doing more than Proteus has... Which you're also denying.

No, I'm not denying that, I'm denying the assertion that that somehow means that he's automatically more powerful.

You can call your horseshit truth. but its still horseshit.

You drawing parallels between the Omniscient Narrator and horseshit underlies the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

According to who?

According to logic (I'd love for you two to meet sometime). Such statements are relative to the reality around them. It's why, for instance, with characters like X-Man, rather than labelling him simply the most powerful psionic power there is, writers go out of their way to label him as the most powerful psionic force in any reality. It's really not that hard to understand.

Speculation.

Labelling it as such does not qualify as a counter argument. It's outright said that "For the Exiles, this is the way Creation ends." The Exiles are a group that travel around the Omniverse ensuring its safety. The end of Creation, for them, would mean the end of the Omniverse. And again, it's stated outside of space-time, meaning that with no specific reality mentioned, it would apply to all.

I see sarcasm is wasted on you... Nice to know you can't even pickup on that.

Oh right, yeah, of course, I honestly had no idea that that was sarcasm. 🙄 I actually really believed you were being serious there, thinking that the mistakes are always on your part, despite arguing otherwise like a moron for the rest of the post. Yeah, I can't pick up on sarcasm at all.

LMAO!! Yes it is when that's what's in question.

Believe that if it helps you think you actually know anything about debating. Again, all I'm doing is pointing out that the comics label him as such. You accusing that as being circular reasoning is like accusing Mr Master of Circular Reasoning when he posts his scans.

Fact: Omniscient Narration is perfectly Canon (it's how literature works I'm afraid).

Fact: Omniscient Narration labels Proteus as [insert quote] and states that he would [insert quote].

Fact: By default, [insert quotes] are perfectly Canon.

You denying this shows just how much of an idiot you really are.

Again, as far as Canon goes, Omniscient Narration and on panel depictions are on par. You wouldn't deny that the Beast is blue now, would you?

"The Bible is true, cause god wrote the bible, and we know that god wrote the bible because it says in the bibel that god wrote the bible, so therefore the bible is true"

False Analogy. With the Bible, you're bringing into question how such claims fit into real world truth. It's not intended to be a fictional work. The narrator is not Omniscient by default, and can be accused of being wrong if it claims that everything inside it is true and factual in the real world setting.

Comics are fictional pieces of work, and the Omniscient Narrator is essentially telling us the fictional story. His words essentially define canon (as do the artist's drawings).

The comic is true cause the comic said the comic is true.

No, more like: Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation because the Omniscient Narrator says so. In the context of the storyline, The Omniscient Narrator's words are 100% factual, and thus because he says such, such is factual.

Here, I'll lay it out nice and clear for you.

Argument: Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in creation.

Premise 1: The Omniscient Narrator's words say as much.

Premise 2: The Omniscient Narrator's words are fully canon.

Conclusion: The idea that Proteus is possibly the most powerful being in Creation is perfectly canon.

As you can see, the premises being correct are not dependant on the actual Conclusion being correct.

Please, know what you're talking about.

Breaking the rules again I see.

How is that breaking the rules. All that the rules say is that you have to provide reasons for your views. I have, in the form of quotes. This part of the argument is not my supporting evidence, I'm just defeating the argument that Jaspers > Proteus because he has displayed more, as it has no place in logic.

No I'm seeing you're breaking the rules of Logic and those of the forum.

If you actually knew what logic was, this might mean something.

So there's nothing VALID that you've said so far. Alot of weasling, with excuses and invalid arguments you've given a bounty of.

Says the dumbass who has no less than 5 times incorrectly pointed out a Logical Fallacy in my post.

"Know the meaning of terms" coming from somone who still gets words wrong after several different dicitionaries are all provided for you that show you that you're wrong? Oh right "Insert excuse here as to why you were right"

One word: conclusion. Only an idiot wouldn't the meaning of such a simply word.

Again, your ineptness at applying context to dictionary definitions is your problem, not mine.

I'm not arguing with canon, I'm arguing with you. And you're arguing with circular reasoning.

"The comic's true because the comic says it's true."

Know what you're talking about idiot.

Circular Reasoning!