And you might want to learn how to construct a coherent syllogism.
Let's review your effort:
The multiverse was created by shattering the First Firmament. The Celestials are the ones who shattered the First Firmament. Therefore, the Celestials created the multiverse.
The major premise is incorrect: the text runs thus: "A war that shattered me into pieces. In the final conflagration -as the rebels detonated their unimaginable weapons - hundreds of new universes split off from my new pure substance. In terror - to preserve my uniqueness, my very self - I fled to the furthest edges of my being, my remaining aspirants inside me. And behind me, those new universes coalesced, forming a new, collective entity. A second cosmos - and the first of a new breed. The first multiverse."
The causal chain here is clearly spelled out - the First Firmament is shattered, which results in the splitting of hundreds of new universes. The multiverse is created only when these hundreds of universes then coalesce.
Let x = the shattering of the First Firmament
Let y = the creation of the multiverse
Let z = the coalescing of hundreds of post Firmament universes
The assertion x → y is here incorrect, since it does not take into account the causal role of z.
Let w = the splitting of hundreds of new universes, then the only conditionals that the above passage justifies is as follows:
x → w
z → y
Onto your minor premise: "The Celestials are the ones who shattered the First Firmament". Yet the text runs thus: "I like them. I named them Aspirants. But there were others. Multicolored rebels... It was madness and sacrilege. It was war. A war that shattered me into pieces."
The text is clear. Responsibility for the shattering of the First Firmament rests not just with the Celestials, but with the war between them and the Aspirants, a war that was "madness", a "sacrilege" and that led to the First Firmament being "shattered into pieces". The Celestials may have supplied the coup de grace (the detonation of their "unimaginable weapons"), but the responsibility clearly rests not with this act but with the war itself.
We thus have an incorrect major premise, an (at best) incomplete minor premise and a fallacious conclusion. But hey let's just relabel bad logic "nitpicking semantics" shall we?
Great post. Well argued and entertaining.