The Goddess of the Manifold is not a real character, and should be deleted at once

[Ogbunabali]

I'm with Zach on this one.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Since the page was deleted before this was concluded, and it's almost unanimous that her page should've stayed, can she be restored now?

 

[DarkGrath]

I think it should be safe to restore it, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Done. Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this discussion?

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

This can probably be closed now

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Antvasima]

I was asked to reopen this thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4213957

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

The Guy Who originally made it still isn't convinced, unsurprisingly, but almost everyone else agreed it should be restored.

 

[Agnaa]

It was going in circles. A bunch of staff members were convinced by Zach, and Malomtek still holds his original position. idk how useful it is to re-open this thread.

 

[Malomtek]

I should have been allowed to respond first. We are only "going in circles" because Zack is refusing to give evidence of the existence of a Goddess of the Manifold-type character that is anything more than "these two characters mumbled on about God for a bit". Nothing about what she is, or has done, or anything else that would designate the real existence of a character.

Second

>And we're going in circles now. Like I said, she IS both the fundamental reality and sentient. As in she's specifically compared to being the mind of existence.

Where? That quote in the top of "her" character profile? Because that has not been explicitly confirmed.

>Arguing that literally every reference to a character who is compared to being the mind of the multiverse is a metaphor is dumb.

Let me quote someone else for a moment

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

With no corroborating evidence to back it up, like a clear statement made in an objectively factual manner to the existence of a "Goddess of the Manifold", there is no reason to interpret those mumblings about God as referring to a literal entity.

 

[Malomtek]

It would be like if we made the Writer page in a hypothetical timeline where the Writer never appeared in the Animal Man comic, and all we went off on was mumblings from the Animal Man character and some random assorted interviews.

 

[Agnaa]

We have a page for The Gentle Pull, which has never appeared and was only talked about.

 

[GLHF22]

We have a page for The Gentle Pull, which has never appeared and was only talked about.

I think His point is that The Goddess doesnt confirmed to existed instead of never appeared.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

> Where? That quote in the top of "her" character profile? Because that has not been explicitly confirmed.

I gave the book this comes from. Manifold origin. Like, the last 3 pages. And you admitted to having never read them.

> With no corroborating evidence to back it up, like a clear statement made in an objectively factual manner to the existence of a "Goddess of the Manifold", there is no reason to interpret those mumblings about God as referring to a literal entity.

They refer to her in a literal sense.

And I'll say this again, since you didn't properly address it.

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

 

[Malomtek]

I think His point is that The Goddess doesnt confirmed to existed instead of never appeared.

To add on this, the Gentle Pull was very clearly implied to have existed by Rosalina as having aided Mario in his victory over Bowser, while one of the more "important" pieces of "evidence" for the existence of the Goddess is some mumbling about how Dante perceived God from not even an underlying multiversal essence, which is what the Goddess supposedly is, but some random "multidimensional artifact".

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

He saw her face, briefly. Are you going to argue that omnipresent beings can't have faces? Because... Quite a lot of them do.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Why are you so angry about a series you've never read?

 

[Threemagi]

Wait what? You can restore deleted pages? Damn. I thought you need to make it from scratch...

Don't mind me, I'm just passing through~

 

[Malomtek]

He saw her face, briefly. Are you going to argue that omnipresent beings can't have faces? Because... Quite a lot of them do.

Why do all of your arguments presuppose the existence and attributes of the Goddess, and that "she" is what is being referred to with those God-mumblings? It's downright disingenuous.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

She's not even technically called "the goddess of the manifold". She's called God, or the god of the manifold. But "God" is a female.

 

[Malomtek]

And please, put off that attitude you're copping.

>I gave the book this comes from. Manifold origin. Like, the last 3 pages. And you admitted to having never read them.

I'm not talking about the quote's location, I'm talking about evidence that corroborates the quote referring a literal entity in particular, instead of mere in-universe character philosophy.

>They refer to her in a literal sense.

No they don't.

>And I'll say this again, since you didn't properly address it.

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

What is there to address? It's merely you trying to force a subjective standard that benefits only you into a versus debate.

It's like you don't understand that if we interpret the "Dante seeing God in multidimensional artifact" quote literally, and apply them to your conception of the "Goddess", as basically the embodiment of the deepest layers of the Manifold, then God/Goddess and the Manifold itself are apparently just some higher-dimensional things and not the "Mind of [Outerversal] Existence" or whatever inflationary titles you've applied to the supposed "Goddess".

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

1) Yes they do refer to her in a literal sense. Did you even read it.

2) It doesent say she's higher dimensional, it says the artifact Dante used was.

You aren't even reading the quotes I give you properly.

 

[Malomtek]

Why are you so angry about a series you've never read?

You're confusing "anger" with "aggressive analysis" and "willingness to have stricter evidence standards than poetic language".

This entire "Goddess" discussion is like if we made the Source profile with its current stats, based on nothing more than some hypotheses of Orion and Lightray and not the clear evidence from in-universe descriptions/depictions, from omniscient narration, and from interviews, that the Source not only exists, but exists as a superior being relative to the multiversal superstructure.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

The source has more evidence than the goddess exists but the goddess still has enough evidence she exists.

And, hell, we have profiles based on less evidence. Like The Creator (Wizard101).

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

>Poetic Language

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

 

[Malomtek]

1) Yes they do refer to her in a literal sense. Did you even read it.

2) It doesent say she's higher dimensional, it says the artifact Dante used was.

You aren't even reading the quotes I give you properly.

1. No, they don't. Stop stonewalling.

2. I didn't say that the quote said she was higher-dimensional. I said that, given that the quotes only speak of higher dimensions as relative to "God", their literal interpretation would only really imply that "God" was merely a higher-dimensional being. I don't interpret the quotes literally. You're now resorting to strawman.

I am reading the quotes you gave properly, you just keep trying to twist things to fit your version of reality.

 

[Malomtek]

The source has more evidence than the goddess exists but the goddess still has enough evidence she exists.

And, hell, we have profiles based on less evidence. Like The Creator (Wizard101).

That's not less evidence. The Creator was explicitly described by a character who would be reasonably knowledgeable on that sort of thing as creating the universe. The Goddess doesn't have that.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

"I didn't say that the quote said she was higher-dimensional. I said that, given that the quotes only speak of higher dimensions as relative to "God", their literal interpretation would only really imply that "God" was merely a higher-dimensional being."

Literally shortly after in the exact same storyline they say

"The whole notion of dimensionality is an approximate one that only emerges in a semi-classical context"

 

[Malomtek]

>Poetic Language

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

But I don't simply claim it, I bring up reasons why, such as the specific use of diction in the quotes. You're regurgitating this glorified appeal to authority like it's a lifesaver because you don't want to admit that the God isn't real, and "he" only exists, as of now, as an in-universe hypothetical.

In-universe speculation without anything meaningful to back it up is worthless as evidence.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

There's a big difference between "actual speculation" and "in-verse speculation". Writers almost never put in pure speculation in their stories unless you're actually supposed to believe the speculation to be true; otherwise, they're literally just writing ridiculous and unnecessary filler.

Having someone in-verse who's knowledgeable on a topic speculate about it and come to a clear conclusion almost always = something true. So, with the above sourced quotes in mind, and the repeat mention of the same being, I'm almost positive the writer intended for this god to be real in-verse; rather than just fantastical speculation.

 

[Malomtek]

"I didn't say that the quote said she was higher-dimensional. I said that, given that the quotes only speak of higher dimensions as relative to "God", their literal interpretation would only really imply that "God" was merely a higher-dimensional being."

Literally shortly after in the exact same storyline they say

"The whole notion of dimensionality is an approximate one that only emerges in a semi-classical context"

A quote you saw fit to omit from us, for some reaso. And even then, how does that specifically relate to the "seeing God in multidimensional artifact" passage?

 

[Malomtek]

Now I'm supposed to presume that DarkGrath is a psychic who can telepathically divine the contents of the minds of most authors, of course.

Please don't insult my intelligence with that.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

"A quote you saw fit to omit from us, for some reason"

Because this was discussed in the manifold revisions. Of which there have been many.

"And even then, how does that specifically relate to the "seeing God in multidimensional artifact" passage?"

Your argument is that since Dante saw god through a "High dimensional artefact", god has to be higher dimensional and can't be beyond dimensional, but there is explicitly beyond dimensional characters/structures in verse so the idea the supreme being would be bound to higher dimensions is nonsense.

 

[Malomtek]

>Because this was discussed in the manifold revisions. Of which there have been many.

What do the Manifold revisions have to do with this thread? If you're omitting important context, its disingenuous no matter how many other times the important context is otherwise brought up.

However, this doesn't look like important context anyway.

Your argument is that since Dante saw god through a "High dimensional artefact", god has to be higher dimensional and can't be beyond dimensional, but there is explicitly beyond dimensional characters/structures in verse so the idea the supreme being would be bound to higher dimensions is nonsense.

I was making a point through a hypothetical argument. Even then, it is no more than unsupported assumption that the "God" that Dante perceived is necessarily the supreme being of the Manifold universe.

 

[Malomtek]

Seriously, it's like arguing that God of the Spawn comic book series ranks higher than the Mother of Existence because he's called "God".

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

So you want evidence she's the supreme being?

Okay

"She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself ― or perhaps the manifold itself, the greater structure of reality strands, is itself self-referential, in some sense conscious."

I've posted this before.

Hell, her rating and relation to her verse was discussed in a previous thread.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4157196

 

[Malomtek]

So you want evidence she's the supreme being?

Okay

"She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself ― or perhaps the manifold itself, the greater structure of reality strands, is itself self-referential, in some sense conscious."

I've posted this before.

Hell, her rating and relation to her verse was discussed in a previous thread.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4157196

>May

>Perhaps

It's just a part of that same bit of character philosophizing from before. It means nothing without further evidence, like a statement of an event explicitly involving the Goddess.

I don't care about a thread you started that already presupposes the existence of the Goddess.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

1) It was agreed upon by multiple staff members

2) Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

 

[Malomtek]

1) It was agreed upon by multiple staff members

2) Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

1. What was agreed upon?

2. Now I know you're being completely disingenuous. The diction itself - the "may" and "perhaps" in key areas - shows the quote to be mere in-universe speculation.