- 5,554
- 2,329
I'm with Zach on this one.
-
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.
The Goddess of the Manifold is not a real character, and should be deleted at once
- Status
- 24,183
- 3,938
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?
- 24,183
- 3,938
This can probably be closed now
- 24,183
- 3,938
The Guy Who originally made it still isn't convinced, unsurprisingly, but almost everyone else agreed it should be restored.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #51
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.
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.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,578
- 13,865
We have a page for The Gentle Pull, which has never appeared and was only talked about.
- 24,183
- 3,938
> 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.
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.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #56
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".
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".
- 24,183
- 3,938
He saw her face, briefly. Are you going to argue that omnipresent beings can't have faces? Because... Quite a lot of them do.
- 24,183
- 3,938
- 24,183
- 3,938
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.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #62
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".
>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".
- 24,183
- 3,938
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.
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.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #64
You're confusing "anger" with "aggressive analysis" and "willingness to have stricter evidence standards than poetic language".ZacharyGrossman273 said:
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.
- 24,183
- 3,938
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).
And, hell, we have profiles based on less evidence. Like The Creator (Wizard101).
- 24,183
- 3,938
>Poetic Language
Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.
Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #67
1. No, they don't. Stop stonewalling.ZacharyGrossman273 said:
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.
- 24,183
- 3,938
"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"
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"
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #70
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.ZacharyGrossman273 said:
In-universe speculation without anything meaningful to back it up is worthless as evidence.
- 24,183
- 3,938
DarkGrath said:
- 24,183
- 3,938
"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.
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.
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #75
>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.
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.
- 24,183
- 3,938
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
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
- 1,050
- 491
- Thread starter
- #78
>MayZacharyGrossman273 said:
>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.
- 24,183
- 3,938
1) It was agreed upon by multiple staff members
2) Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.
2) Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.
- Status
Similar threads
