• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

General DC Comics Discussion Thread

You know the context in which I refer to “God” as absolute, not a god of a belief system.

1. I never said the Presence was the Unknowable
2. The Unknowable isn’t described in the story itself. “Unknowable” has briefly been mentioned but not with enough sufficient information to make concrete date from. We have to assume it’s just something outside the Multiverse. We don’t even know if it’s God, it’s just a fitting concept that it could be that.
Morrison directly called him God, separate from Overvoid and Source

Beyond that crumbling ledge in Monitor-World, those concepts don't exist and it's all non-dual Monitor mind, or God, or Kirby's Source, in which all contradictions are resolved into unity. It's funny, the more I talk about it, the more I'm getting into it!

There is a misconception in the community that it is believed that Presence is the absolute of Dc
 
The Unknowable is still the creator who drew the crack on the Overvoid, nothing has changed
Could be, has not been stated. We don’t know who did it, so it’s unknown to us. May not be a Creator entity at all. I don’t think any being superseded the Overvoid on how Morrison’s described what’s it was suppose to be. It’s just didn’t know who drew a flaw on it.
 
Morrison directly called him God, separate from Overvoid and Source

Beyond that crumbling ledge in Monitor-World, those concepts don't exist and it's all non-dual Monitor mind, or God, or Kirby's Source, in which all contradictions are resolved into unity. It's funny, the more I talk about it, the more I'm getting into it!

There is a misconception in the community that it is believed that Presence is the absolute of Dc
I’m not trying to sound prude. However, his statement is saying God is also called Source and Overvoid as synonyms to each other. “Or” being the supplement word to describe it.
 
He’s literally calling the Page(Overvoid) God in the context of Final Crisis.
 
The Unknowable is obviously stronger and out of reach of the Overvoid and the Source. It's not even on the map
“Obviously?” That’s just assumption.

It’s also on the Map. Outside the Multiverse is those three. The Map is not drawn to scale. The Overvoid is not the size of a comic book paper and the Unknowable outside there in the white infinite page like Overvoid and Source. It’s probably because it’s called Unknowable that we don’t know where it is specifically or what it is.
 
“Obviously?” That’s just assumption.

It’s also on the Map. Outside the Multiverse is those three. The Map is not drawn to scale. The Overvoid is not the size of a comic book paper and the Unknowable outside there in the white infinite page like Overvoid and Source. It’s probably because it’s called Unknowable that we don’t know where it is specifically or what it is.
The Overvoid cannot recognize him, and for God he is only paper, and the Source is only ink. I mean, even Source and Overvoid are written on the map
 
The Overvoid cannot recognize him, and for God he is only paper, and the Source is only ink. I mean, even Source and Overvoid are written on the map
To remain “Unknowable” would lose its meaning because calling a white part unknowable would make it known to be the same as the other two.

Also, the White Page we see outside the Multiverse where it explicitly highlights on the Map “out there” beyond the Source Wall are the three. The Map is meant to depict what it’s sort of looks like, it’s not as I mentioned, drawn to scale. The Map technically would be infinite and include the Unknown label buts it’s being read off from a Comicbook. It also isn’t mentioned that the Source is the “Ink.”
 
Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.
That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme. So the argument being made here that “it’s called God so it’s the Presence” is wrong because it’s out of context. Spectres Oversoul also isn’t The Smile so I don’t know why that keeps getting brought up.
 
That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme.
Except your making up you’re own headcanon trying to elude that scan meant the Presence in Doctor Fate when Matteis hasn’t mentioned the Presence by name in that comic.

Spectre comics is when it actually appeared the full Godhead. In Phantom Stranger, God assumed form in the form of a Dog, who represent the Voice, an aspect of the Presence/God.

You’re acquitting the Voice who is in the Creation to equal the being that transcends all forms, thoughts, and matter as full Godhead to the Dog?
 
This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.
 
Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.
 
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.
You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.
 
You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.
You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.
 
Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.

Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.

This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
Fully agree with this.

The Map states things that are outside. It's not saying Source = Overvoid = Unknowable.

It's saying outside the Multiverse are the Source, the Overvoid, and the Unknowable. Yes, I agree with Morrsion's view that Source = Overvoid but the Map is not trying to connect that idea but rather what's out there in the endless Void beyond the Multiverse.
I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.
 
I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.
I don’t really disagree but the point of the map is locations of things. Those three are outside beyond the Multiverse, I don’t think the Map is saying they’re the same thing because that wasn’t the point.

I don’t really think the Unknowable is the same thing. I do think that Overvoid, Source, and Unknowable, I feel are representation of the infinite page/Void represented differently. Equal in status and hierarchy but not exactly the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Also, the Unknowable like the Source is a title to a certain thing outside the Multiverse. It’s not meant to be equated, if it’s describes as an adjective. So an unknowable Monitor wouldn’t refer to the Unknowable.
 
Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.

Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.

This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
I also agree with this.
 
You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.
Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level. If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.
Morrison rolled back the canon and Starlin's words that Darkseid fought the Source, which at that moment was the other side of life. This was accepted as a given on the wiki, canceling Starlin's words, although he is the same author as DeMatteis. Why then at certain moments the words of the authors are taken over the rest of the universe, and some authors are canceled in favor of something else?
Why does the cosmology of one author (although no different cosmologies exist, it is just someone else’s invention) stands above the official cosmology of another author, which the editors accepted?
 
Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level.
There shouldn’t a split in the first place by your logic.
If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.
I don’t see where “all” is mentioned especially if one wasn’t shape by beliefs. The core of the Sphere runs on belief and magic which a certain God transcends especially since it was established that God’s power was used by beings beyond the Gods to create the Multiverse which eventually the Sphere pop as a result.
Morrison rolled back the canon and Starlin's words that Darkseid fought the Source, which at that moment was the other side of life. This was accepted as a given on the wiki, canceling Starlin's words, although he is the same author as DeMatteis. Why then at certain moments the words of the authors are taken over the rest of the universe, and some authors are canceled in favor of something else?
Except the story highlights that was not the full Source? A glimpse of what the Source entailed which was later added since the Source is the creator and precognitor of both Life and Anti-Life and is contained by it. What happen in Death of the New Gods was just both side of the aspect of the Source were separated by the three Gods of Roman, Norse, and Greek. No conherent scaling if you believed that these Gods > Source.
Why does the cosmology of one author (although no different cosmologies exist, it is just someone else’s invention) stands above the official cosmology of another author, which the editors accepted?
The intention isn’t to say different cosmology rather different interpretation of a cosmology.
 
I strongly agree about keeping DeMatteis' cosmology separate.
 
Grant has said a couple of times that the map is supposed to follow some Kabbalistic attributes in nature, the Kabbalah posits that God has about three aspects, or forms that it took. The Ain is the non-existence preceding God, the ain sof is God, and the ain sof aur is the infinite light of God.

Grant, I believe, did personally think of the Source as the Ain Soph Aur, the infinite light (or in this case, energy) of God. And the map does say that there is specifically three things beyond the Source wall, which Grant has called God.

Due to the Kabbalah calling these three manifestations "God", I believe Grant probably also called the Source, "the unknowable" and the Overvoid "God". Hence, why the Source was referred to as the Overvoid or the white page multiple times, it's simply synonymous with God.
 
You’ve asked something I already answered.
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.

Does drawing information from religion prevent one from placing one cosmology within another? Are you serious?
 
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.

Does drawing information from religion prevent one from placing one cosmology within another? Are you serious?
It creates an interpretation of how the Cosmology is defined based solely on the author intent. Any addition to contradict such notions is the reason for the split.
 
We are talking about placing one cosmology into another, and the fact that he mainly focuses on Christianity and Hinduism is in no way relevant.
The simple premise is that. How would you put one Cosmology with another, if the information on how the Cosmology is structured is contradicted with each other. If it weren’t such a problem, then the split shouldn’t ever had happen. Due to how Matteis writes, yes, the religious view is heavily needed.
 
Back
Top