- 7,554
- 7,741
What's the current consensus?
-
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.
Thor Abstract Existence and Conceptual Manipulation
- Thread starter Robo432343
- Start date
- Status
Excellence616
He/Him- 6,046
- 4,360
bump
- 1,415
- 3,549
I’m still leaning on agreeing with the OP, but I can see where Eficiente's coming from.
I actually think Marvel Gods could gain AE2, CM2, Multilocation, and Empowerment altogether, though Eficiente prefers the latter two alone over the former two. I think he'd come to agree with the CRT if there was a scan proving Marvel Gods had resurrection (limited or not) as a direct result of their nature. Without direct statements for someone like Thor being capable of dying physically then arising back into existence at some later period due to mortal belief, it may not fulfill the exact requirements for AE2.
I actually think Marvel Gods could gain AE2, CM2, Multilocation, and Empowerment altogether, though Eficiente prefers the latter two alone over the former two. I think he'd come to agree with the CRT if there was a scan proving Marvel Gods had resurrection (limited or not) as a direct result of their nature. Without direct statements for someone like Thor being capable of dying physically then arising back into existence at some later period due to mortal belief, it may not fulfill the exact requirements for AE2.
Pepsimanslover_69
He/Him- 896
- 492
According to the Abstract existence page,
''Embodying a concept is not enough to obtain this ability, an abstract needs feats or reliable statements proving that the concept they represent grants them Immortality/Regeneration or control over the abstraction.''
The OP just needs to showcase the ability to manipulate the concept to get the ability, Not relinet immortality.
''Embodying a concept is not enough to obtain this ability, an abstract needs feats or reliable statements proving that the concept they represent grants them Immortality/Regeneration or control over the abstraction.''
The OP just needs to showcase the ability to manipulate the concept to get the ability, Not relinet immortality.
- 5,219
- 2,309
Are you just ignoring the "or" in that sentence?
Pepsimanslover_69
He/Him- 896
- 492
What or? The page pretty explicitly says that you can get the ability by controlling the abstract you represent or by being immortal thanks to it.
- 5,219
- 2,309
Yeah, you can show either or, you only have to show one, not only manipulation or both
Pepsimanslover_69
He/Him- 896
- 492
That's my point...
- 3,048
- 2,248
- 15,441
- 5,031
For reference, in my opinion Abstract Existence type 2 might just be the most wanked thing in the wiki. The standards used in practice make it so one doesn't even need to exist as an abstraction, as the name of the power implies, but simply be vaguely representative of said abstraction in any way and have powers or non-abstract gimmicks related to it. At that point, I would love to know the difference between "Abstract Existence" and "Having a regular existence with a few gimmicks related with 1 concept".
For the topic of this thread, remember that I already pointed out the issues with the proposal of that power here, so I'm yet to see anyone argue against that.
For the topic of this thread, remember that I already pointed out the issues with the proposal of that power here, so I'm yet to see anyone argue against that.
- 1,415
- 3,549
I also found this scan, which could potentially contradict the statements in the OP (though consistency is obviously more important, and I'll admit there are far more statements in favor of the OP).
On second thought, unless there are generalizable scans indicating that Gods gain reliant immortality from their abstract essences, or are capable of manipulating them directly (not sure if empowerment counts in itself), I'll have to be neutral on the AE2 and CM2. I say "generalizable" because the examples like Odin manipulating Lord Chaos and Master Order seem like special cases that shouldn't apply to all Gods. The Multilocation and Empowerment still look fine to me though.Source: Journey Into Mystery (Vol. 1) #627; 2011
- 10,971
- 4,941
the scan just refers to how gods in marvel are created. Does not say anything about them reliant or being immortal from it;
- 15,441
- 5,031
No, you see, the statements in the OP also talks about how gods in Marvel are created, therefore the scan shown does contradict the statements in the OP. Your second sentence implies that to have been already proven somehow, which I would imagine you would have already argued for if you could.
- 1,415
- 3,549
Could you tag staff to evaluate?Thank you for helping out, Eficiente.
- 16,083
- 9,329
All these scans and you didn't pull up the Moon Knight one where Konshu says Gods are stories, which lines up with the current Immortal Thor run.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Those scans are good. However, we can't take it literally as a mechanic all gods have because other gods are proven to die. It would at best apply to those gods, not all gods. It's not very clear what he means, but it's more likely that he means that they're unkillable as in, Type 5 Immor., given the wording, and potential reference to his own backstory. And that fits even more to the idea that this doesn't apply to all gods; they are 2 gods fighting, 1 is trying to kill the other, and the latter points out that to not be possible, unlike every fight between gods ever where the gods are at risk of dying.
Marvel throws around the word "story" like this a lot, it's not a single stand-in that refers to a consistent set of ideas everyone is always talking about. When something has multiple definitions and none is set to be more likely, then none is inhereditary more likely and better proof is needed for clarification. One may think that "Because they know what they're doing, therefore they must be holding the same thing consistent," however that implies that using multiple stand-ins for the same word to refer to vaguely similar ideas is a mistake that they must not be doing. Which they absolutely could as taking it as a mistake is subjective.
- 6,201
- 16,525
The first paragraph just totally misses the point. This being that Ares embodies the concept of war, as an actual abstract universal, because Gods aren't just dudes arbitrarily claiming that a given facet of reality is their own. So Nate noting that this embodiment spans "every plane and every future" is indeed relevant. The scan referring to the Gods as "potent myths woven into collective reality" also is a metaphysical statement about the nature of the Gods, since the same scene is Vision talking about how they are more than just their physical bodies. And the full scene shows the Olympians ressurecting because they are potent myths woven into the collective unconscious. So this, by the way, means that they do indeed meet the "Has to be unkillable due to a connection to an abstract essence."
Thor Vol. 3 also shows the same thing happening after all the Asgardians died as a result of Thor destroying the Cycle of Ragnarok. Note: "It is not for the Gods to decide if man exists. It is for man to decide if the Gods exist." Followed by all of them coming back to life as if waking up from a slumber.
Gods are Gods. "A god is a living story" is just an universal fact that applies to all of them, not something selective that's only true of a few. Any given statement of that nature goes for all of them.
So, yes, Type 2 AE is more than justified for the Gods. Truth be told, I plan to go over this in more depth in upcoming revisions of mine. Got busy with other wiki stuff instead, but, yeah.
Last edited:
- 18,628
- 12,901
- 15,480
- 22,595
Type 2 AE seems fine.
- 12,468
- 5,657
- Thread starter
- #60
can you guys please come check this thread out too
vsbattles.com
Galactus Conceptual Manipulation
bro i didn't copy paste this from the g1 blog Galactus has fought conceptual abstracts many times before, however, it’s seen most clearly throughout Al Ewing’s Ultimates run. In one such example, he was able to fight Master Order and Lord Chaos in their true forms which represent the very ideas...
- 5,460
- 2,303
Self promotion is crazy.can you guys please come check this thread out too
Galactus Conceptual Manipulation
bro i didn't copy paste this from the g1 blog Galactus has fought conceptual abstracts many times before, however, it’s seen most clearly throughout Al Ewing’s Ultimates run. In one such example, he was able to fight Master Order and Lord Chaos in their true forms which represent the very ideas...
- 10,971
- 4,941
so can this thread be locked then. Ultima would cover it in more depth and detail later on
- 12,468
- 5,657
- Thread starter
- #63
Excellence616
He/Him- 6,046
- 4,360
- 222
- 206
I agree with this AE Type 2 FRA
- 15,441
- 5,031
Slow your horses. You mean that you take this away from that scan alone, or that further information makes you look at that scan that way?
I don't believe that Gods "are just dudes arbitrarily claiming that a given facet of reality is their own," I do in fact know that there are supernatural things going on in relation to the facet of reality they represent. You use the incorrectness of that thing you said to point out the relevance of Nate's statement, however that's worthless as an argument because my interpretation doesn't imply that Gods aren't what they are in relation to the facets of reality they represent. You say that I'm wrong but you omit being substantive about the why of it, if anything it leaves me thinking that you maybe didn't understand my argument.
But I already know that to be a metaphysical statement about the nature of the Gods tho.
Correct. However, we can pinpoint this to be due to Olympians being "potent myths" and because the universe isn't "ready to let them go yet," rather than because all myths can do the same, are just as potent, and are as wanted by the universe.
That is a solid example but you're wrong by saying that it's "Followed by all of them coming back to life as if waking up from a slumber" and that it's "the same thing happening." In the former case the Olympians simply revived after a time by themselves, but here this took much more time, hard work for Thor to find the right people who had a specific God "living in their heart," and then he needed to do some magic bs to revive them from there in a reincarnation-ish sort of way. The mechanics are immensely more limited, and only Thor had it easier because he already had Donald Blake to share his body with him.
We can still call that Immortality but, we would need to look into it: I believe the comics make a point that the Gods have only 1 human each to represent them, as in, they didn't have that before those human were born and won't have anything after they die. And if that were to be the case, it would not be type 4 Immortality because they cannot reincarnate forever.
Quit flexing around things that are obviously correct with things that are obviously wrong to then act like your stance on a topic is supported. I gave my reasons, please argue against them. Tell me why Gods can die when that scan tells us that to not be the case. You again come off as if you didn't understand my argument, I clearly know that the scans shown would give out the nature of all Gods in a more consistent narrative and that the wording on a vacuum doesn't give something selective that's only true for a few Gods.
- 15,441
- 5,031
There are other things I agree with tho, that would be ignoring them. And you're assuming Ultima's wishes, the fact that he will cover the topic later doesn't mean that he doesn't want some conversation about it beforehand.
- 16,083
- 9,329
Ok your response is a nothingburger. You're attacking the semantics of Ultima's argument and not justifying your own points.
To begin, the latest Immortal Thor run gives us insight into the actual origin myth (or at least the most current retelling). And it directly states that Gods are "living concepts". I don't know how much more blatant you could be.
Also the second part is just ??? because you're blatantly not engaging with the argument at all. You're making a rebuttal whilst simultaneously displaying your disinterest in entertaining the idea in the first place. Like how are we supposed to make an argument against your point when you've already made preconceived claims (through your bracketed remarks) that we have yet to refute?
Contextually speaking, why is Aries special? Why wouldn't he share attributes of his Godhood with his fellow Olympians? You literally call out the potent myths scan as if it doesn't solidify Aries being no different from the other Greek Gods. The same Greek Gods that have the same origin myth as all the others as I've stated at the start.
1. a very typical example of a certain person or thing.
2. a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.
Now given the context of the scan, Thor literally corrects the guy calling him an archetype; claiming that he's only viewing Thor on a surface level. This tells us one of two things: Either Thor understood the term archetype to mean the first definition and is telling him that he's more powerful than just a mere example of an element, or Thor understood the term to mean the second definition and he's blatantly saying he's the idea of all storms.
In both definitions, how the hell did you arrive at Multilocation? When has Thor literally ever been shown to be everywhere a storm is? You're making a brand new argument here that no one was making. And like, coming back to how this is nuanced ignorance, the context provided by the various other scans make it more likely that Thor was referring to the second definition. At the very worst this scan works as supporting evidence. You're twisting the narrative by saying this is Multilocation.
To begin, the latest Immortal Thor run gives us insight into the actual origin myth (or at least the most current retelling). And it directly states that Gods are "living concepts". I don't know how much more blatant you could be.
I don't know how you read "The Gods of Olympus are more than just physical bodies. They are potent myths woven into our collective reality" and thought this was backstory instead of literally what the text says. Especially given the context was that these Gods died and and Vision is saying "you know they probably aren't dead considering they're, y'know, Gods". Gonna be honest the Thor Vol 1 scan doesn't really support Abstract Existence so I'd discard it.
Bro what are you saying? The scan is literally just saying "wow you're the personification of war". Where are you getting redefining war from? Like please explain your point clearly. Are you saying Aries can't be the abstract embodiment of war because he changes? Your argument is a statement without a point, there's no argument for me to make here.
Also the second part is just ??? because you're blatantly not engaging with the argument at all. You're making a rebuttal whilst simultaneously displaying your disinterest in entertaining the idea in the first place. Like how are we supposed to make an argument against your point when you've already made preconceived claims (through your bracketed remarks) that we have yet to refute?
Contextually speaking, why is Aries special? Why wouldn't he share attributes of his Godhood with his fellow Olympians? You literally call out the potent myths scan as if it doesn't solidify Aries being no different from the other Greek Gods. The same Greek Gods that have the same origin myth as all the others as I've stated at the start.
Ok this is a nuanced level of ignorance. There are two definitions of the word archetype:
1. a very typical example of a certain person or thing.
2. a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.
Now given the context of the scan, Thor literally corrects the guy calling him an archetype; claiming that he's only viewing Thor on a surface level. This tells us one of two things: Either Thor understood the term archetype to mean the first definition and is telling him that he's more powerful than just a mere example of an element, or Thor understood the term to mean the second definition and he's blatantly saying he's the idea of all storms.
In both definitions, how the hell did you arrive at Multilocation? When has Thor literally ever been shown to be everywhere a storm is? You're making a brand new argument here that no one was making. And like, coming back to how this is nuanced ignorance, the context provided by the various other scans make it more likely that Thor was referring to the second definition. At the very worst this scan works as supporting evidence. You're twisting the narrative by saying this is Multilocation.
Yes and? Nightmare is a God like Thor and the other Pantheon Gods are. Again, prove that Nightmare specifically is different from the other Gods and therefore should have aspects of his Godhood be unique to only him.
Yeah I'm in agreement with this, Thor with the Odinforce is already stated to have all of Odin's powers so it's moot.
Also in agreement.
- 16,083
- 9,329
Brother what are you saying? "You use the incorrectness of the thing you said to point out the relevance of Nate's statement" You have to PROVE the statement is incorrect. This is a non-argument. You're attacking the point with an OPINION. How is that in any way a valid argument? Why even respond to this argument at all if your argument is just to say "you're wrong because you're making an argument for an interpretation I don't share". He's literally correcting you with a valid point, do him the curtesy of doing the same.
Ok and? Please elaborate. This is not an argument.
See what I said in the previous post. The Olympians are not special amongst Gods. Vision doesn't use the term "potent myths" as a contrast to anything so why make the assumption that the Olympians are any special as compared to say, Asgardians?
This is semantics. The point is that Asgardians can return from death like how Olympians can. The mechanics are secondary to the point. Ultima is literally showing you that Thor can continue living as he's an abstraction; an idea that resides in human minds and can be made real.
All the context and scans have been presented to you and have to work in tandem. You're choosing to isolate the scans and rob them of context to fuel your narrative. Ultima isn't the one being selective, you are. Gods can die because Gods are stories. In stories, characters can die, but that doesn't mean the story ends. The narrative of Zeus doesn't die just because he does. You know why? Because he's abstract. He comes back because the abstraction of Zeus isn't destroyed, only the physical incarnation of him. That's the point we're trying to make here.
- 10,971
- 4,941
Just to clarify Nightmare is not a god. He is a fear lord different race.
- 16,083
- 9,329
Ah ok. Give me a moment to read the comic I have a backup argument.
- 18,628
- 12,901
As someone who has read 400+ Doctor Strange comics yeah Nightmare is absolutely not a God, he's something else entirely and thus can't be used.
For example, he is stated twice to be of similar abstract nature as Eternity, once by himself and once in a Scarlet Witch comic.
But I still agree with the OP.
For example, he is stated twice to be of similar abstract nature as Eternity, once by himself and once in a Scarlet Witch comic.
But I still agree with the OP.
Last edited:
- 15,441
- 5,031
I already have a problem with that.
- Define "attacking" in this context, you're saying that I'm doing anything other than point out the flaws on the way Ultima tackled the manner?
- It's not semantics, the way Ultima replied to my comments was pretty lazy. I justified my points in my comments, if my reply to Ultima justifies how he doesn't properly reply to my comments then I by extension I don't need to reiterate my comments again.
- It's odd that you jump that bring new information after those claims. It's not like because that scan says that, then therefore I must be wrong about older comments. I agree that they're living concepts, no issue there.
It is backstory as a myth comes before a God, and it is also what the text says. I didn't deny what the text says, I said that it wasn't Abstract Existence because they didn't have the requirements for it from that scan.
Please don't misrepresent me, the scan shown doesn't show the part where they revive:
Ultima even pointed this out in his comment and I replied to it, idk how you missed that. Sometimes I read the full comic for context but this time I didn't do that.
Personally, I believe that my point was clear by itself. I do agree that Ares personifies war in a "special" way. What I don't agree is that, mechanically, the range in which he personifies war is across every plane and every future. Rather, I believe that war is a concept that remains the same everywhere (in every plane and future), unlike concepts that change over time or in other dimensions. And this makes Ares more special. In part, I believe this because Gods like him always embody something universal, not across every plane and every future, which have their own Gods to embody the same thing there.
We do know that he's not literally the second definition because of all the things that make Thor not be that, there are layers to it as he says, therefore you can't take it literally. If Thor didn't have a physical body, soul, or any layer to how he is an archetype, then he would literally be an archetype (Assuming that's what he meant), they distort the meaning of the word to accommodate with what Thor is, ergo they're not being literal with it in the first place.
I arrived at Multilocation because he elaborates on this, he says that all the power of the storms from all the world literally flow through his veins & can be summoned by his hammer at any time, and that all storms on Earth therefore are attributed to him.
I never said that he was literally "shown to be everywhere a storm is," you quoted my proposal yet felt the need to make a strawman of it. I clearly only argue that Thor is mostly himself, and that a small part of himself includes the power of the storms flowing through his veins & the rest of what he says.
Yes, it goes without saying that I'm "making a brand new argument here that no one was making," things like that make you come off like you're going too fast from pure impulse having read & disliked my stuff.
The other scans & stories are their own topic, they don't necessarily mean that older stories don't stand on its own. Thor explains understandable mechanics here and so we can index them.
It's bizarre that you say that I'm twisting the narrative when I'm using what the narrative states. If anything, I could define throwing around how Thor never showed this elsewhere and how other stories provide the context for what they're saying in this one as twisting the narrative.
This is pretty atrocious and you keep overreacting to a degree. I don't have to prove the statement to be incorrect because I don't believe that there isn't relevance in Nate's statement. I do believe that he's right in what he says, but I don't have the same stance Ultima took from it. Ultima explains his stance as a reply to my comment but didn't argument against it too well, so I my comment pointed this out. That's what I say, and I argue that well, it's not a non-argument because my argument is still in the comment Ultima replied to. My "OPINION" falls back to my original argument. You do realize that I could also say "you're wrong because you're making an argument for an interpretation I don't share" about this comment I'm quoting to and that part in Ultima's comment? If he's "literally correcting [me] with a valid point" then why are his points things I already agree with? (Ares embodies the concept of war, Gods aren't just dudes arbitrarily claiming that a given facet of reality is their own, Nate's statement being indeed relevant.) It's like you have no idea what I said but you still know that I'm monumentally wrong.
You're supposed to try to appear to be reasonable with me (Just a joke). There is nothing to elaborate there, he said something I already knew, I pointed this out. Simple as that. You could call that an argument or you could say that no argument was needed in that context, but you already jump into me being wrong for doing something perfectly reasonable.
"Potent myths" can be in a contrast to less potent myths. Asgardians are shown to die and not revive like this, therefore it's not the same.
In any other context like this, I wouldn't assume that "a potent group of X able to do something" refers to all groups of X being able to do the same, even if they're not said to be potent next to those other groups.
You can clearly see that I already know "the point" and what Ultima is showing me. I try to do my job here; the mechanics are not secondary, the info we have needs to accommodate with the standards we have for Type 2 AE. It wasn't semantics.
Not necessarily all of them. Some of them, sure. It's a subjective topic but the contradictions they create bring objectivity about what to relate to other statements & take literally. There is such a thing as a series creating similar ideas that don't relate to one another, and Marvel is massive. If we necessitate that to be impossible then at that point we're doing it because we want to, not because that's the most logical thing to do. It makes me wonder, what can Marvel do to create ideas that don't relate to similar ones by those standards?
I don't remember saying that Ultima was being selective?
In the link I go over there an enemy claims that she will kill Konshu in combat, Konshu replies that they can't die, but that they can war one another, banish each other, and hurt each other. I said that this is Type 5 Immor. because it's most likely what the story presents.
I already know that point. Again, the info we have needs to accommodate with the standards we have for Type 2 AE, so I don't need to be told that about Zeus. I already agree that Zeus has that going on for him.
---
@Sir_Ovens So, I think we can have a better discussion here. I get that you think that I'm very wrong and you can still think that by the end of the discussion. That's fine by me, I can defend my takes and that's that. Are we good?
Last edited:
- 12,468
- 5,657
- Thread starter
- #76
I agree because of this statement
Last edited:
- 1,415
- 3,549
Agree
Ultima_Reality (Planned to cover this in-depth in the future)
Maverick_Zero_X
Sir_Ovens
Executor_N0
No Vote
Firestorm808
Antvasima
Disagree
Eficiente (Prefers Multilocation and Empowerment)
- 12,468
- 5,657
- Thread starter
- #80
who wants to add AE 2 on Thor's profile
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
