- 4,089
- 1,351
This is a indexing wiki that listing many fictional verses and the real world.
Also I agree with DarkDragon and Kee regarding this matter tbh.
-
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
Also I agree with DarkDragon and Kee regarding this matter tbh.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #83
it doesnt matter, as fire does exist, so, controlling it just means that u can control it, same to souls, if u can control souls, then u can, however, as souls are not proved, it shouldnt be assumed to work in beings that arent stated to have those
indexing wiki that assumes unproved and not reliable things? funny
- 4,451
- 1,947
Concepts aren't proven, time to assume conceptual manipulation will do nothing to people who are from verses that don't specify concepts exist.
VSBW and literally any versus debating platform uses ideas made up by humanity that aren't necessarily true.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #85
Yeah, thats what i'm saying
- 1,690
- 1,191
Isn’t that exactly what the wiki is doing in this case? Seems to be throwing the burden of proof aside for the favor of the person with soul manipulation.
Making a flat assumption that anybody and everybody has a soul unless proven wrong by the author is not neutral at all.
Shouldn’t it be a case by case scenario to actually be completely neutral.
- 10,078
- 8,194
The wiki was never something that was 100% correct and scientific. I don't know why you are taking this point so far
- 4,451
- 1,947
I believe that's a very stupid thing to say, honestly. It would be silly for us to just remove a good chunk of our powers because "they aren't proven" when most ideas aren't proven, they're just ideas. Or theories we use for the tiering system. Or theories we use regarding speed, etc, etc.
- 4,089
- 1,351
Ngl it is even a bigger assumption that say “Oh hey, this entire verse is soulless” as we need burden of proof on a fictional series that outright mentioned the whole “no one has a soul” rather than just safely assuming they do have souls at least.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #90
So, I can just assume whatever I want and everything will be fine? thats literally nice
I disagree, thats the accurate option
it is not a good chunk, since, several verses works with souls, so, to majority of relevant verses in the wiki, as literally, almost ALL verses in a battleboard site works with souls, so, soul hax is literally fine, as the power does exist in fiction, it just is inaccurate to assume that it works in verses that said unproved thing wasnt mentioned/stated to exist
most of the tiering system already is proved, well, certain parts are theories, but i dont care to what happens to tier 1/0
- 7,003
- 1,871
By this point I don’t even know what to say because this isn’t about soul anymore. This is about stuff that is entirely opinion based. ‘Why do we do this’ because the vast majority of people agree to use it. This isn’t a factual debate in any way, shape, or form. There is no scientific argument to be made it’s entirely depends on what people think. Why does fiction have souls? Because the large majority of the creators of fiction believe it has souls, and even non believers often write souls into their stories. And those that aren’t believers often don’t write claims saying they don’t exist, so we are left with a undefined 50/50 on whether they exist or not. With the other verse claiming they do exist with no counter claim to refute it.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #92
literally no, you are assuming that certain thing exist despite not being proved, we are just saying that you cannot assume that it works in others verses that it wasnt mentioned, since, as a unproved thing, it is not a standard/requisit to something exist, different than stuff like Atoms, Atoms do exist, so, obviously, all verses are assumed to have it, the same cannot be said to souls
in fact, the people from side of ''souls existing should be standard'' are literally the ones that are using their opinions/thoughts to make up standards, despite said things not being proved
- 10,078
- 8,194
You are asking several ironic questions and then come to no conclusion in the end
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,232
- 12,282
I don't want to talk about soul stuff, but please don't compare tier 1 and 2 to the soul as an argument. Tier 1 and 2 while theories, they still a mathematical fiction based on math, and math and physic stuff is real. Soul on the other hand is entirely fictional until now and probably far future
- 4,451
- 1,947
Not really a thing, but sure.
Ok, i'll list "Immunity to Soul Manipulation (the verse does not mention souls)" on a page I make for a character like that. Or immunity to conceptual manipulation, since it's smart to list things that the character would be immune to by essence of who they are. "Immunity to Time Manipulation (their verse does not mention time)", "Immunity to Conceptual Manipulation (their verse does not mention concepts)".
Not anything above tier 3, really.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #97
i guess time already was proven to exist? well, idk, if it doesnt exist, then ig? idk, I dont have my opinions about the time topic
- 7,003
- 1,871
My arguement doesn’t rely on their existence because my main point is the verse has no claim one way or the other. So the one that does claim something should take priority. Do these humans have souls, we can’t prove if they do or don’t but the opponent says they do, so we would go with that.
- 2,317
- 1,083
we haven't seen souls or tier 2 or 1 beings,
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #100
if things like souls, time, concepts are not proved, then yeah, but time have math/physics behind it, while Souls are fantasy-based from people that lived thousand years ago that cannot explain what the **** is happening to their world, i can give several examples of cases like this
- 4,089
- 1,351
Tbf, it also relies on scientific theories too as it ain’t purely mathematical, but I digress on the matter.
- 1,690
- 1,191
That’s not how burden of proof works tho. Also safe assumptions are still assumptions with no proof so there is no case for or against it.
If you make a claim that someone can kill an opponent due to them having soul manipulation you by burden of proof have to prove that 1. That person has a soul for you to manipulate and 2. That soul is weak enough to get manipulated.
So I disagree I don’t have to make the claim that he doesn’t have a soul, the burden of proof is not on me
- 4,451
- 1,947
I mean, eh? Time is still an idea made up by people, and doesn't necessarily exist. I don't see why we should assume it does either, by this logic.
- 7,003
- 1,871
Fiction in and of itself is fantasy based. Half the powers on this site in and of themselves aren’t scientific. Souls in many verses aren’t claimed to exist nor not exist. So we simply don’t know. Since the opponent claims they do exist, and they have no counter claim against it. We would just go with that.
- 10,078
- 8,194
When will you guys realise that neither side has any real proof
- 4,089
- 1,351
It is literally how it works or else we might as well argue everyone get immunity to soul manipulation as well as the fact we legit need WOG and/or in verse statements regarding if they are actually soulless or not.
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #108
Yes?
Yes?
Yeah, we don't
The opponent claims that they do exist, yet no proofs, and it exists perhaps only in the said verse, but maybe not in the other, again, you are assuming several unproved things, despite this being an ''''''''indexing wiki''''''''
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,232
- 12,282
So, what scientific theories soul based on??? Literally none, and tbh with you my country is a pretty regilious country and i also partially believe in soul, but please separate fantasy stuff with science stuff
- 4,089
- 1,351
I am referring to the Tier 1 and 2 part, not soul.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,232
- 12,282
Oh oke, sorry you then
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #113
Some people seems that purposely ignores the scientific method just to argue in side of something literally baseless and making bad comparisons
- 2,317
- 1,083
This is fiction, take your Spacebattles science elsewhere.
- 4,089
- 1,351
I mean you ain’t making it any better since technically it not just purely scientific to begin with.
It is literally dwells into the ideas and so and so forth.
- 10,078
- 8,194
Time was proven. You've never heard about black hole?
Concepts also exists. It is a word and a way of expressing something. The "moral concept" is the same as "moral idea" for exemple
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #117
I said IF
- 15,490
- 10,297
- Thread starter
- #118
then if Concepts exist, cool, it works just fine
- 1,690
- 1,191
I’m just discussing not arguing so ion think I’ve taken a side but that is exactly at what I’m trying to get across.
nobody can say this person with no proof of souls in their respective fictional universe has or does not have a soul. So why is the wiki making an assumption so much in the favor of the soul side with absolutely no proof or evidence, especially since a mod said the wiki is supposed to be neutral on topics like this.
- 2,317
- 1,083
but if you destroy a concept, does this also destroy everything that the concept represents?
Are concepts metaphysical?
Refer to my earlier post, one where i made an analogy involving programs
- Status
Similar threads
