i thought the same, but galactus is a cornerstone of the universe due to his origin. he literally is empowered by a 3rd of the cosmic egg energy ( oblivion and infinity seem to be parts of eternity and death)
the celestials are somewhere under the 616 eternity i think, but their individual might is from another universe all together supposedly so it's hard to gauge.
tiamut was powerful enough to engage the entire second host foe centuries before they used "the weapon" on him, he is apearantly powerful enough to cause galactus to feel fear. so, g might be better than the avarage celestial.... *shrugs*
Originally posted by psycho gundam
i thought the same, but galactus is a cornerstone of the universe due to his origin. he literally is empowered by a 3rd of the cosmic egg energy ( oblivion and infinity seem to be parts of eternity and death)
that's pretty speculatory. just because he's a sibling doesn't mean he's equal to them. status doesn't always equate to power. and it doesn't mean eternity=a third of the egg energy either, nor death. i'd always thought the egg energy in it's totality WAS eternity and that he'd shielded g when he came from the previous universe. nothing to say how much power he was given. when he died the first time he became nothing more than a simple star--"ever-burning", but still . . . hardly the 'multiverse-ending' power that was intimated in annihilation.
the celestials are somewhere under the 616 eternity i think, but their individual might is from another universe all together supposedly so it's hard to gauge.
yeah, they were formed BY eternity. each is powered by the might of a galaxy according to the black galaxy arc in thor.
tiamut was powerful enough to engage the entire second host foe centuries before they used "the weapon" on him, he is apearantly powerful enough to cause galactus to feel fear. so, g might be better than the avarage celestial.... *shrugs*
maybe he's better than the average celestial, but his levels flucuate a lot more than theirs do. odin was once said to be near-equal to galactus but we've seen what he was able to do to the celestials. the higher celestials seem much more powerful than g. tiamut is just one example. people cite the earth x episode, but i think g was powered by franklin richards in that story. or something like that anyway . . .
Originally posted by leonidas
yeah, they were formed BY eternity. each is powered by the might of a galaxy according to the black galaxy arc in thor.
And in another story, they're powered by hyperspace directly...which, in that story and according to Reed Richards, makes up the entire Marvel Universe.
meh. been a while since i read the arc. i knew they were formed from galactic material. if the birth rivals the big bang that's even more powerful than i recalled and hence even greater support of the celestials. the hyperspace stuff was odd when it was introduced. basically provided the means for sue to 'stab' one i guess. i suppose the 2 can be reconciled, but it's still clumsy writing.
Originally posted by Enyalus
That's not really true at all. It takes a galaxy's worth of material to form them. But when born, that event rivals the Big Bang in scope. Also from the Black Galaxy arc.And in another story, they're powered by hyperspace directly...which, in that story and according to Reed Richards, makes up the entire Marvel Universe.
i think leonidas is talking about SS #10 (i think) where Eternity is telling Galactus how he meditated, and from the meditation, the Celestials were born.
Originally posted by leonidas
nuh-uh. we can throw out all by feats in this case because . . . they ALREADY met. odin+a group of skylords couldn't even make arishem notice him. in the armor he wasn't able to take out ANY 'single' celestial. and that armor was empowered by a lot more than just the odinpower.comparing odin and IB however is MUCH different. IB has next to zero good showings and quite the opposite the showings he has aren't very good. by contrast odin has dozens of uber feats. now, none of those feats would matter if we SAW odin get worked by IB.
since that has NOT happened, we use feats as opposed to simple hearsay. there is really no reason whatsoever to assume IB>odin. the opposite is true if we look at their histories.
Ordinarily i'd agree with your logic but then again there's an issue. I have to bring up the OAA example because that fits the same criteria as the IB vs. Odin explanation you just gave.
OAA has never fought Odin, and Odin's feats are >>> OAA's since we are "using feats as opposed to simple hearsay." Again, disregard the fact that Odin has encountered other celestials before...i'm talking about this one particular celestial (OAA), purely to articulate my case.
Going by feats alone, and since there has never been a direct confrontation between the two, Odin>>>IB, with your reasoning.
However applying that same reasoning to Odin and the OAA, leads to the conclusion that Odin>>>OAA as 1. they have never met individually; 2. Odin's feats>>>>OAA's. In other words, the specific circumstances regarding the OAA and the IB are exactly the same.
Originally posted by leonidas
but it doesn't work t. oaa>>>any other celestial. we've seen any other celestial>>>odin. 😬you need a completely seperate example.
Yes it does work. I just illustrated how the your criteria of 1. no feats (or few feats) and 2. no encounters with Odin apply EXACTLY to the OAA as much as you apply them to the IB.
You implicitly believe that the OAA>>>any other celestial because of his station, NOT based on feats. We both know this because the OAA has almost zero feats. So you place a premium in the station that OAA commands, as opposed to his feats.
Yet, you are unwilling to apply the same logic to the IB. You are unwilling to believe that IB>>>Odin because of IB's station, NOT based on feats.
In other words, with the IB you place a premium on the feats, as opposed to the station that the IB commands, vs. the case with the OAA, where you place a premium on the station he commands, as opposed to the feats he has demonstrated.
See what i mean?
Originally posted by Tenebrous
Yes it does work. I just illustrated how the your criteria of 1. no feats (or few feats) and 2. no encounters with Odin apply EXACTLY to the OAA as much as you apply them to the IB.You implicitly believe that the OAA>>>any other celestial because of his station, NOT based on feats. We both know this because the OAA has almost zero feats. So you place a premium in the station that OAA commands, as opposed to his feats.
Yet, you are unwilling to apply the same logic to the IB. You are unwilling to believe that IB>>>Odin because of IB's station, NOT based on feats.
In other words, with the IB you place a premium on the feats, as opposed to the station that the IB commands, vs. the case with the OAA, where you place a premium on the station he commands, as opposed to the feats he has demonstrated.
See what i mean?
again, not in this case. i'm not basing my opinion on station at all (though logic would dictate oaa is the most powerful of the celestials--perhaps he's not really, perhaps it IS just a station). my opinion is based on the simple fact that OAA IS A CELESTIAL. even assuming he's only as strong as a normal celestial, that is still more than enough to say he's >>odin. the only thing i'm presupposing is the fact that oaa is not far WEAKER than the average celestial. a logical enough stance i think.
seriously--the logic doesn't translate at all. ANY celestial>>odin based on direct confrontation. since oaa is a celestial, he is therefore>>odin.
and there's nothing inherent in IB's station that would lead me to believe he should be necessarily considered above odin.
now, if i said odin>>>chaos or order based on feats, you'd have an argument. i wouldn't say that for the simple fact that order and chaos have too FEW feats to form any opinion on. their stations are certainly above odin. as regards their personal power and how they would fair in direct combat against odin, or galactus or a celestial is impossible to say.
Originally posted by leonidas
again, not in this case. i'm not basing my opinion on station at all (though logic would dictate oaa is the most powerful of the celestials--perhaps he's not really, perhaps it IS just a station). my opinion is based on the simple fact that [b]OAA IS A CELESTIAL. even assuming he's only as strong as a normal celestial, that is still more than enough to say he's >>odin. the only thing i'm presupposing is the fact that oaa is not far WEAKER than the average celestial. a logical enough stance i think.seriously--the logic doesn't translate at all. ANY celestial>>odin based on direct confrontation. since oaa is a celestial, he is therefore>>odin.
and there's nothing inherent in IB's station that would lead me to believe he should be necessarily considered above odin.
now, if i said odin>>>chaos or order based on feats, you'd have an argument. i wouldn't say that for the simple fact that order and chaos have too FEW feats to form any opinion on. their stations are certainly above odin. as regards their personal power and how they would fair in direct combat against odin, or galactus or a celestial is impossible to say. [/B]
Again there's a simple flaw in your logic.
You said this:
OAA IS A CELESTIAL
well the IB IS AN ABSTRACT
It could reasonably be argued that the abstracts are as related to each other as much as the celestials are 1 race. You mentioned your odin>>>order or chaos example, but the same logic still applies. Order and Chaos are both abstracts, so is the IB. You argued that you have the luxury of placing a premium on the OAA's station because he is a Celestial, and Celestials have been shown to be greater than Odin.
The flaw that i'm trying to point out is that you HAVE to apply the same logic to the IB. the IB is an abstract body, and abstracts are clearly above Odin.
that's why I said take the OAA in complete separate isolation, and take the IB in complete separate isolation. with the OAA you're confident in his power because he's a celestial, even though the OAA has almost no feats.
Yet you're NOT confident in the IB's power, even though he's an abstract. As i said, it's a double standard. If you trust in the OAA's power simply because he's a celestial, then why don't you trust in the IB's power simply because he's an abstract? That's what i'm trying to get you to see
Originally posted by Tenebrous
Again there's a simple flaw in your logic.You said this:
well the IB [B]IS AN ABSTRACT
It could reasonably be argued that the abstracts are as related to each other as much as the celestials are 1 race. You mentioned your odin>>>order or chaos example, but the same logic still applies. Order and Chaos are both abstracts, so is the IB. You argued that you have the luxury of placing a premium on the OAA's station because he is a Celestial, and Celestials have been shown to be greater than Odin.
The flaw that i'm trying to point out is that you HAVE to apply the same logic to the IB. the IB is an abstract body, and abstracts are clearly above Odin.
that's why I said take the OAA in complete separate isolation, and take the IB in complete separate isolation. with the OAA you're confident in his power because he's a celestial, even though the OAA has almost no feats.
Yet you're NOT confident in the IB's power, even though he's an abstract. As i said, it's a double standard. If you trust in the OAA's power simply because he's a celestial, then why don't you trust in the IB's power simply because he's an abstract? That's what i'm trying to get you to see [/B]
first, where do you get the notion that IB is a true abstract? he was created by chaos and order as a servant and must SERVE them. he's like a herald. an unhappy one, who wants to get off his leash. he's been tasked with keeping the balance when chaos and order see fit. true abstracts were formed of the universe, not from beings within them . . . were the IB slain, chaos/order might or might not decide to remake him. when an abstract is killed its m-body is destroyed but it's conceptual aspect is left intact (ie--when quasar defeated anomaly, or strange blew up death's m-body).
and not all abstracts need be more powerful than mortal beings. galactus is not abstract. mephisto is not abstract. dormammu is not abstract. so the logic does not hold that ALL abstracts>non-abstracts.
MIGHT IB be more powerful than odin? maybe, but not based on what i've seen of him, and i'd ceratinly NOT say IB>>>odin. it appears at the very least they are quite close in power levels.