-
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.
Why everything is assumed to have a soul here?
- Thread starter Bernkastelll
- Start date
- Status
- 3,191
- 3,444
I think a lot of people are going into tangent here. Like, really erroneous comparisons. Not all concepts or ideas are the same. The passage of time is observable and it is discussed not only in philosophy but also science ffs.
It's quite absurd to compare that to the idea of the existence of a soul. That's fantasy shit, it's more akin to arguing whether or not gods exist IRL, although I'm quite certain that topic is probably banned in this forum due to obvious reasons. Or whether magic or the aether exists, especially the latter that was a thing in the past.
Ideally, we shouldn't use the standard assumption that souls exist in a story that doesn't use it, much like how souls don't exist IRL as there's no proof that it exists. This applies to other fantasy concepts too.
But it gets messier with fictional verses, so the best thing to do is to always treat it in a case-by-case basis. Applying a site-wide rule is a mess that probably nobody wants to really deal with or have a solution in mind at the moment, especially with how people are either used to assuming everything has souls or mixing their own personal beliefs in it or whatever else.
It's quite absurd to compare that to the idea of the existence of a soul. That's fantasy shit, it's more akin to arguing whether or not gods exist IRL, although I'm quite certain that topic is probably banned in this forum due to obvious reasons. Or whether magic or the aether exists, especially the latter that was a thing in the past.
Ideally, we shouldn't use the standard assumption that souls exist in a story that doesn't use it, much like how souls don't exist IRL as there's no proof that it exists. This applies to other fantasy concepts too.
But it gets messier with fictional verses, so the best thing to do is to always treat it in a case-by-case basis. Applying a site-wide rule is a mess that probably nobody wants to really deal with or have a solution in mind at the moment, especially with how people are either used to assuming everything has souls or mixing their own personal beliefs in it or whatever else.
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #123
Yes, we use IRL shit to fiction, such as calcs, laws, etc, and I am saying that the comparison between Math and Souls that someone made is literally stupid, as Math and Physic have the scientic method in their side, while Souls side have none
- 4,451
- 1,949
I'm not ignoring anything, and you've not been able to explain why they're bad comparisons. Even without the comparisons, it's just easier to assume things have souls for the sake of indexing. Even if you just go down to the amount of work involved, it's easier to not list an immunity of soul manipulation than it is to list it. People want to list it there because it makes it easy. Matches become easier to make, things generally become more clear cut.
- 4,630
- 1,615
I think you misread the mod. DarkDragon is saying we have to take a neutral stance regarding in real life soul and stuff.
“
As for the existence of IRL souls themselves, that is not relevant to the indexing of this wiki and gets into religious controversial territory so I'd rather not have that. But even in IRL, saying their is no soul or no "Higher Power Entity" is just as religious as saying there are those. And we're supposed to be more neutral when it comes to IRL stuff. No one should force any kind of religion or nonreligious on anyone. But what we do prioritize is verse equalization; which the best way to do that is to make it the standard assumption that everybody has a body, mind, soul, empathy, past/history, present, future/fate, and exist within cause and effect unless otherwise stated in respective verses.”
- 7,333
- 2,059
(I was referring to a comment that got quickly buried by replies) But there is no proof leaning one way or the other. The story doesn’t claim they do or don’t exist. Meaning we have nothing to go off. This means the opponent claiming they have a soul should take priority, since nothing exist to negate that claim.
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #127
I literally did, the Math/Physic side is literally using the Scientific Method to their cases, such as making observations, creating hypotesis, testing the hypotesis, reach conclusions etc, while Soul side literally cannot be argued to be based in something, as they literally fail in that criteria
- 2,317
- 1,080
concepts fail all the same, now every realistic verse gets immunity to concept and soul hax
your idea is nonsense
- 4,630
- 1,615
Actually there are fictional series that does mention soul IIRC like Digimon and so on and so forth as I think you have to even been more hardpress to find evidence of a verse having soulless beings.
I personally find it absurd to assume all beings to being soulless unto itself in a literal sense too.
- 31,370
- 34,114
This thread reminds me of the philosophy Descartes said which later became a song by Weird Al Yankovic. About everything we know being wrong.
But in all seriousness, forced secularism on a bunch of verses is also just giving verses that have supernatural properties look weaker while giving verses that don't have souls or spirituality special treatment. Not to mentioned we have had plenty of people attempt to do the same that got universally rejected. And I have doubts that's going to change anytime soon. But anyway, you might as well attempt a thread trying to say why does hax even exist to begin with? But again, that is far too much repetition and other staff members are going to basically say the very same thing.
But in all seriousness, forced secularism on a bunch of verses is also just giving verses that have supernatural properties look weaker while giving verses that don't have souls or spirituality special treatment. Not to mentioned we have had plenty of people attempt to do the same that got universally rejected. And I have doubts that's going to change anytime soon. But anyway, you might as well attempt a thread trying to say why does hax even exist to begin with? But again, that is far too much repetition and other staff members are going to basically say the very same thing.
- 2,317
- 1,080
are people really trying to debunk hax
- 7,333
- 2,059
Once again, real life doesn’t matter because people that don’t belief in souls can write stories with souls. Fiction isn’t the real world so there is nothing truly putting the assumption one way or the other. There is no prove for or against souls. If the verse says there are no souls then this thread is pointless. If it says nothing why would we assume soul manipulation won’t work when there is no claim countering it.
- 7,333
- 2,059
I think you read my comment wrong. I was referring only to versus that say nothing.
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #135
someone else said that concept was proved, doesnt matter, if it was proved, then cool, if it wasnt proved, then concept hax doesnt works in these without following a specific verse logic, since, it cannot be proved, so, it shouldnt be assumed to exist, so, immunity to concept hax, as everyone is immune to something that doesnt exists, but Souls literally cannot be proved here, so, what is the point?
Actually, the wiki is giving special treatment to the unproved/unreliable side, not the opposite, look, I cannot say that all verses can be affected by ''Magical pink elephant with rainbow sings'', since, I literally made up that shit, unless an author wants to create the magical elephant yada yada wing, it cannot be assumed to work in all verses, as I said, it is a made up thing, with no proofs and its not reliable
im not trying to change anything, as this is a Question and Answers board
- 4,630
- 1,615
Ah fair enough, but even then it kinda does fall into speculation territory.
- 1,690
- 1,191
No absolutely does it not mean whoever made the claim takes priority it means the claim is invalid and should not be used.
Aye I fw weird Al he a legend
The opposite is occurring right now tho. Both parties have 0 proof if a character has a soul or not so why have it be a point of contention and be a case by case scenario.
- 2,317
- 1,080
your suggestion is even more ridiculous
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #139
Made up and unproved things >>> Accuracy then, that's what the wiki is doing, but hey.
- 4,630
- 1,615
What claim is being there when there is no claims of whatever they have a soul or not in a fictional setting. To say they don’t have souls required a actual burden of proof.
- 31,370
- 34,114
The standard assumption is that characters have 0 resistance to soul related hax unless otherwise stated or shown. That is the plain and simple part.
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #145
yeah thats the standard assumption, cool I guess? Where is the legitimacy behind said assumptions? Literally none other than ''a lot of people belive tho''
- 2,317
- 1,080
Because this isn't a serious political or whatever debate forum. We are here, to debate who wins when character 1 punches character 2 in the face. We are not here to debate life and death.
- 7,333
- 2,059
What’s the legitimacy of soul manipulation as a power in and of itself? People believe in it. In the real world we have claims versus whether or not souls exist. In fiction the verses in question don’t make any claims for or against souls. So the opponent believing they have souls makes a claim against them that they don’t counter in any way.
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #148
Because soul manipulation is a power, characters does have it, that's it.
some fictional works says that it exists, but and? it doesnt means that it exist to others verses, and as an unproved and not reliable, it should not be an assumption to all verses, because it simply does not have proofs to exist
- 2,317
- 1,080
if you apply this to one power apply it to all the others
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #150
What? Why? Verse X have made up things there, it does not means that said Made Up things exist in others verses
- 1,690
- 1,191
Let me quote myself
That is said claim I’m referring to.
That assumption is throwing the burden of proof fallacy away like a piece of trash in favor of the side making the soul manip claim. You cannot manipulate something that is not proven to exist in that specific universe.
That is incredibly wrong. That is not how claims work at all you need to have evidence or proof to make said claim actually vaild or correct. Otherwise you have an unproven claim that holds no weight whatsoever.
- 2,317
- 1,080
then all powers cease to work
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #155
No, they dont, several powers are just the manipulation of things that already exist
No, if a verse have a shit called AIOQUSDWHAIUSDGHAUISD, and said AIOQUSDWHAIUSDGHAUISD is what made up the humans, it does not means that the other verse has AIOQUSDWHAIUSDGHAUISD, as AIOQUSDWHAIUSDGHAUISD is a made up and unproved thing and only exist in a specific verse
- 7,333
- 2,059
Well it’s more: one verse says literally nothing and is completely unknowns versus the other making a hard claim that is very clearly true. There is nothing to invalidate the claim and we know the claim is true for the one with soul manipulation, so it should work just fine as the other verse has nothing stopping it.
- 3,267
- 1,094
You know what, I think the OP makes a lot of sense. Souls weren’t ever proved as a concept, so why would we assume fictional works with souls not ever mentioned have souls? And no “most works have souls” isn’t a good response ce
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #158
burden of proof
- 16,139
- 10,667
- Thread starter
- #159
''A lot of verses have Mermaid, so, Mermaids must exist in all others verses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''
''A lot of verses have Pixies, so, Pixies must exist in all others verses!!!!!!!!!''
''A lot of verses have Pixies, so, Pixies must exist in all others verses!!!!!!!!!''
- 2,317
- 1,080
already solved, there is no clear cut answer-this nerfs supernatural verses unfairly
- Status
Similar threads
