Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20190805231616

"Using Toby as argument falls under the subjective opinion umbrella. It's the only thing left to do once we cannot deduce anything else from the canon, or if our canon deductions seem disharmonious with what we've already established."

If the canon deductions are disharmonious with what we've established, either we made a mistake in establishing those things, we made a mistake in our deductions, or there's some way for them to both be true that we're missing.

"It doesn't matter that Toby trolled us in the past. I mean, isn't it a logical fallacy in itself to argue that just because Toby likes making jokes, all of his statements are therefore jokes/incredible?"

Are you referring to ad hominem? That fallacy applies if we say "X is Y, therefore, the claim is false".

As I said time and time again, all that matters is the claim itself, not the person making the claim. I'm just debunking the idea that Toby Fox is literally infallible, and since he said something, we should say that it's true!

And since Toby Fox is not literally infallible, we shouldn't say that because he said something, it's true. We should analyze his claim as just that:A claim. A claim that still needs to be tested. And just as any other claim.. The person making the claim is usually the one with the burden of proof. (It actually always is.. Except for the special occasion where the claim is literally agnostic-Because agnosticism is the logical starting point. But if someone makes an argument, and you say it's invalid.. Then show where it's invalid. Do that, and you've shown that the person making the claim has failed to meet their burden of proof, and thus, we should not believe their claim. [not believing a claim is not the same as believing its negation. I use ternary logic for a reason.] )

"Imo, you have it all upside down. The first step should be deducing what the author's intention was. This can include leaving the meaning ambiguous."

We can't read his mind, and Toby Fox is not God. So deducing his meaning is an impossible feat.

Let's just presume for a moment that God exists, and he created the universe. But only that God exists-Not which God exists.

How do you plan on finding out what God's intention for making the universe is?

Also, here, "God" is simply the maker of the universe. We don't even know that he's omniscient, or morally perfect. Literally all we know is that "God" created the universe, and that he set evolution into motion. Guided its direction to create us. (So theistic evolution is true in this hypothetical)

"And after that, we start making our own assessments wherever possible. Because again, this is not the real world, the scientific method doesn't apply here, you cannot run any tests with Undertale, because it's not physical. The only thing you can test is the behavior of its source code, and that won't exactly tell you a lot about the story, only about how the code functions. Basically, you will be able to describe the entire UT world as a thing generated by its code. Great. UT = simulation theory is hereby proven. Excellent job."

The code has to represent something real about the world of Undertale, though. Much as our senses represent something real about the external reality.

We should analyze the information from Undertale the same way we analyze the information from our own senses.

And yes, the scientific method can apply. For instance, is it possible for a flower to absorb both human SOULs and monster SOULs?

...Yes. Because we literally see it happen.

We can also test the effectiveness of items by seeing how effective they are in battle. "Here's the truth: if you don't care about what intentions Toby had regarding the game, you can make up anything you want. You can treat the game like your own plastic toy and develop a story for it, give it a purpose, an end goal, make it come alive. That's what you're doing. You're just using the "scientific method" to aid you with handpicking the ideas."

Not anything. Only things that fit with what the game gives us. If you think literally anything can fit.. Then I'll give you a proposition.. That you're SURE to fail to place under the canon!

Asgore.. is a human.