And even if there was an anti-feat, why would we hold one anti-feat over the boatload of evidence suggesting the Godsphere is and functions like a platonic realm?
Predominantly because there isn't a "boatload" of evidence. Most of it is just riding the coattails of that single Batman scan. It's more the inverse, there is a great deal of evidence proving otherwise.
Both the Superflow and Noosphere have undergone strict scrutiny regarding their ratings.
Sure, I'm not disputing that per se. I'm not familiar with them. I'm just explaining that referencing what other verses do is not a good way to argue for something.
Or… maybe you can provide the source? If you don’t wanna go find it yourself, you can at least redirect them to around where it can be found
Just saying “read the comics” isn’t exactly productive, general thread or not
We're referring to dozens of scans in random comics across decades. I don't have a photographic memory. If the need arises I could spend a good bit of time compiling it, but to what end? I don't just drop everything I'm doing to scour DC for scans whenever somebody asks me to. I'm allowed to say no. If you feel strongly about it, you are more than welcome to do it instead.
Basically, various other abstract spaces in fiction all have used physical terminology to describe what happens, even though it's not in the "most literal sense". Even if you went with Marvel there are various depictions of abstract spaces having "physical events", like being said to have physical forms, gravity, weather, etc. One of the first Thor stories was literally Asgard going to dry out and needed Thor to go there and make it rain. (And yet it was already depicted as an eternal realm beyond time and space). It's not in the "absolute most physical meaning of it", but rather "a general idealized version of those events that are summarized into physical events to be made sense to be told in stories.
Personally, I am not as sympathetic to this viewpoint. Or rather, I can only allow so much of it before I think we're painting a somewhat ridiculous caricature of the stories being told, where we must re-contextualize hundreds of stories by doing our best to explain away every seemingly physical event, with the end result being that our official stance is "never trust your eyes, this visuals of this primarily visual medium cannot be trusted!"
And in some cases, this approach completely doesn't work. For instance, there is a Supergirl comic where Supergirl manages to travel to Apokolips without a Boom Tube, and because of that she is physically smaller than the rest of the citizens. If we consider Apokolips an abstract non-physical space, this suddenly becomes borderline incoherent. It isn't unthinkable that Boom Tubes primarily change someone from being physical to abstract, but why would Supergirl appear physically small for teleporting there differently? Are we to assume then, that her method
also changed her to an abstract form, but for some reason Boom Tubes also amplify the power or "abstract size" of one's form? And for some reason, Supergirls other method did not?
Please, goodness, no. In the context of that story it is abundantly clear that Boom Tubes make you physically bigger and Supergirl was small because she didn't use a Boom Tube and simply teleported instead. I can't imagine thinking the best solution to this problem is tons of mental acrobatics to make sense of this clear contradiction.
