Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20180923134617

"power is referring to the ability of said strength"

An "ability of strength" called "power" is meaningless, considering nothing else in the game makes such a statement. In accordance with Occam's razor, strength is the power itself. It is already gramatically correct that way after all.

Besides, look at the second plaque: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6gS2LPXdIc5OWVTaGU5Qnc2N0k/view

"Its power allows it" - if what you are saying is true, then the plaques would be saying the following:

"The power of the strength of the soul allows the strength to persist after death."

Gramatically, it is implied the two pronouns at the beginning of the second plaque refer to the same object, and the above is clearly a nonsense.

If they aren't referring the same object however, you must prove it first. But your theory isn't proof, and neither is mine, we are stuck arguing over the meaning of this plaque. And in this case, Occam's razor takes precedence.

"The plaques are talking about DT, nothing else"

Obviously. If I say that A ≡ B and then start monologuing about B, I'm not talking about C, I'm talking about B. But B can also be A, even though I never mentioned it. This is because A and B are equivalent. Their definitions do not differ. DT is soul power, which means that each time we're talking about DT, including here, we're also talking about soul power.

And I figured that A ≡ B, because their known properties are identical, and because their labels are identical, assuming the simpler definition, which is "the power of the soul", not the composite one, which would be "the power of the strength of the soul".

You may think that choosing one over the other without any proof is not allowed, but that's Occam's razor for you. We must assume the simpler option if there's nothing else we can add into the equation.

"I know that, but the mere fact that they exist and correspond with a trait shows that those are how these SOULS would operate in the battle system."

That would make the green kid unable to move. Nonsense.

"Where is it stated, hinted, or implied IN THE GAME that Asriel had the power? What is your proof?"

Omega Flowey had the power, and Asriel is stronger than Omega Flowey. Or are you saying the power peaks at 6, even though the status of "god" is described to be achieved at 7 souls, not 6?

"Except Asriel wants to completely obliterate you, render you less than nothing, which would leave nothing of you to retain the power and allow it to fall to him."

And what is your proof that this would have happened? His words? Didn't Mettaton also say he wanted to kill us and take our soul? How is that any different?

"I've already explained why this is earlier, not my fault you chose to ignore it."

No, it means it's a plot hole. Toby planned for everything, for hackers, for quitters, everything and everyone. And he laid out the rules, going back (save for a true reset) makes Flowey remember. In accordance with this rule, this is a plot hole. Just because it exists doesn't immediately make it canon, even though we're saying he planned (nearly) everything.

Just the fact that he had to update the game several times in the past in order to fix some bugs shows, that the original release was NOT perfect. Meaning that if something contradicts the rest of the game, and if it's plausible it could just be an oversight (in other words, an omissive plot hole, not a commissive one), I will take the chance and say that this was NOT the intended behavior, for Occam razor's sake.

"He simply didn't want to comment, because why should he? It'd be redundant."

Just like the dogcheck function? Just like Flowey remarking that you've changed the soundtrack? Omission due to redundancy is not a valid argument here.

"Show me proof of your claim, show me evidence of Toby saying the opposite of what I'm saying that says that I'm saying that he's lying. Go on."

The burden of proof is on you, my explanation concerning the plaques and quitting during Asriel's battle is simpler.

"Because we were so determined to achieve our goal and save everyone that we reached the threshold to attain that ability."

So in other words, a redundant action, compared to my interpretation, which guesses a necessary one. Excellent, way to bloat your theory.

"Regardless if he's doing "anything new" he's knows death isn't going to cut it, so he's going a step FURTHER than death: Destruction, complete obliteration, reduction to nothingness. Frisk can't have the ability if their reduced to nothing, right?"

Yes, but prove that this is the case first.

"No, he doesn't, because unlike before Frisk trumps him in DT."

So the fluctuation is totally arbitrary. Excellent, Frisk is literally a Mary Sue. And that's even ignoring the fucking fact that soul power is DT.