Galen Marek and Revan vs Luke Skywalker

No, I'm producing a theory that fits the facts, which is superior to the one you're assuming, because it does not fit the facts. Appealing to out of universe PIS leaves a hole in the continuity and breaks suspension of disbelief, i.e. what makes the idea of these hypotheticals possible in the first place.

Also, why is it that we take the holding the ship together seriously and dismiss its continued existence, instead of just saying the encyclopedia is wrong and he didn't hold it together? If we're going to ignore things it seems pretty prejudiced to keep the source that benefits your position.

Or I could say that Nihulus being able to TK the Ravager but then needing help to defeat Traya is a plot hole so we should just dismiss the feat. That would be silly.

1. When you have to appeal to ignorance to "fit the facts", I hardly think you can say it's a superior course of action.

2. It's more than one in-game source and more than one out-of-universe source. I don't think any debater's opinion takes precedence over that.

3. Avellone's confirmed that Nihilus could've done it alone and that Sion was there for a "physical reminder".

Postulating things to explain a phenomena is done all the time in Real Life (science, forensics, etc.). It's how we got universal gravitation, the Higgs boson, continental drift, etc. You create theories, try to falsify them, and then apply Occam's razor to the ones that remain...

It's certainly better than just dismissing a hole in your own theory with out of universe hand waving (i.e. What you're doing)

Occam's Razor supports my point.

For the record, I have a history of trying to justify things in-universe, so it's actually quite hard for me to accept out-of-universe explanations, but that's what it is. What possible in-universe explanation could you have without appealing to ignorance, anyway?

Once again, "appealing to ignorance" is something done regularly in science and pretty much every other empirical field when you need to explain a series of data points. I don't know why you think misusing that fallacy is getting you anywhere.

Here's the question: whose argument better fits the facts? Mine has an idea that has neither been proven nor disproven; yours would make a prediction (the ship should fall apart) that is outright inaccurate.

Ambiguous assumption > wrong one.

Also Occam's razor doesn't support your point if you admit that your point doesn't fit the evidence and you need to ignore some and say it's the hand of God.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Or I could say that Nihulus being able to TK the Ravager but then needing help to defeat Traya is a plot hole so we should just dismiss the feat. That would be silly.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
From where you are getting the idea that Darth Nihilus needed help to defeat Darth Traya? Darth Sion's presence in that confrontation proves nothing.