PicEdit

Should we change the GIF with a photo? It is really dark and FPS doesn't look good. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:23, November 3, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

The scene was really dark so I doubt a photo would change much. Of course my opinion might change depending on the photo. FTWinchester (talk) 23:26, November 3, 2017 (UTC)

  • I think its best to just go with a picture of him imitating Cas.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 00:07, November 4, 2017 (UTC)
  • What about a gif of his "true" liquid-like form awakening and a photo of him imitating Castiel? Like the Archangels page with one photo of each archangel Doctor49 (talk) 04:34, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doctor49, that's how it is on the Leviathan page too. 70.93.90.147 04:41, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. Zane T 69 (talk) 04:45, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Here is an image from DE wiki, I think it is great. I'll put his Castiel form in powers & abilities section. SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:14, November 4, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

What do you think of the new picture? SeraphLucifer (talk) 18:37, November 5, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Looks great, but how are we suppose to categorize images of the Cosmic Entity? It doesn't quite merit a category of it's own. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:38, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Age of the EntityEdit

I wanted to discuss this topic, we learned that the Empty pre-dates God and Darkness but can we assume the same thing for the Cosmic Being? SeraphLucifer (talk) 22:48, November 5, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Not without more information we can't. Hopefully we will get more info to fully flesh out the character. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:01, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

So we have to change it like "The Cosmic Entity is a mysterious being who rules the Empty, a place which predates God and Amara" right? SeraphLucifer (talk) 23:04, November 5, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

That's probably for best, yes. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:13, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

in the new Ep ep 6 Cas called it anctient.  Does this change any ones thooughts on its age?  after all if Cas who was old enough to watch the first thing crawl out of the sea is calling somthing anctient that has to add some weight to the age argument.  (the sea thing was mentioned in "a man who would be king") also the entity told cas that no one in the history of forever woke up in the empty as well, that could point to him being older the the history of forever. 

ThomasNealy (talk) 11:00, November 17, 2017 (UTC)

Nigh Omnipotence Edit

We don't know if the Cosmic Entity is nigh-omnipotent, in fact, we only have little indication for this statement. Being able to "[pull] strings" does not equate to nigh-omnipotence. Crowley was also able to pull strings in hell and yet nobody would consider him to be almost all-powerful. He simply sent an angel back to the universe (And seemingly rebuild his body to an unknown degree, granted). --77.178.73.167 18:12, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

It also implied that anyone who wanted to do anything within the Empty and its inhabitants would have to strike a deal with it first, indicating that it has complete control over the realm.

Orion (T-B-C) 20:09, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

How he talksEdit

Say listen, I know this is probably a minor detail, but listening to him, even though he was played by Misha, the Cosmic Entity talks and sounds a little like Leonard Snart from CW's The Flash.

(Gojira2018 (talk) 06:21, November 14, 2017 (UTC))


I thought the same thing. Personally it sounded somewhere between Snart and Rumplestiltskin from Once Upon a Time. This entity talks really weird. JS0662 (talk) 21:44, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

RaceEdit

I can understand why under species it is listed as unknown. But the entity itself called itself a Cosmic Entity, as to what it is. Like how Amara is the Darkness/Nothingness and God is the Light/Being. While they are listed as a Primordials Beings, the Cosmic Entity isn’t it’s name as he said he was just a Cosmic Entity. It’s not wrong to call it the Cosmic Entity, but the entity itself called itself as a Cosmic Entity.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 18:17, November 15, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that.  also in the S13E06 Cas refered to it as a cosmic entity.  I believe the line was "I anoyed an anctient cosmic being".  This shows race or specise but not name, maybe a title. 

ThomasNealy (talk) 10:54, November 17, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that too, but isn't Cosmic Entity not just one of his names, like the Shadow or the Empty--Mgdodl (talk) 01:29, March 24, 2020 (UTC)

  • Cosmic Entity comes from this thing's comment that its just the friendly neighborhood cosmic entity in The Big Empty. The Shadow comes from Naomi's comment in Byzantium while the Empty comes from multiple characters calling it such. Frankly I'm not sure what the hell this thing is. Maybe some kind of physical manifestation of the Empty's consciousness if its alive and not just a realm??? The other Supernatural Wiki gives its name as Cosmic Entity but we renamed it The Shadow following the events of Byzantium.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:39, March 24, 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry I only wrote half of what I wanted to say, but isn't the name of the race cosmic being from the Shadow, because Castiel called it that in Tombstone--Mgdodl (talk) 18:58, March 25, 2020 (UTC)
      • It called itself that in The Big Empty. Its in the quotes on the page somewhere, I saw it earlier. We originally called it the Cosmic Entity which is what the other Supernatural Wiki still calls it. But it was renamed after Naomi called it the Shadow in Byzantium for some reason. Frankly this thing's name is damn confusing: there's Cosmic Entity, the Shadow and more often than not the Empty. Maybe this thing is supposed to be a manifestation of the Empty itself if its a living thing and not just a realm??? Kind of like Tartarus in the Percy Jackson books.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 20:42, March 25, 2020 (UTC)

Could the entity be the Empty?Edit

This might be me just spending to much time rewatching the part where the entity rises up as liquid.  but it looks like he is coming out of the empty like he is part of it.  it makes me wonder if the entity and the empty are one in the same.  like how in Greko-Roman myth some places were personified as an acual being.  I know there is no proof one way or anoher yet but it's an idea that just won't leave me alone. 

ThomasNealy (talk) 11:08, November 17, 2017 (UTC) ( edited the post to fix a few typos)

I was thinking the same. Like Tartarus as you said. I'd love to chat but I am sick so I'll have to rest. I'll return when I am OK. SeraphLucifer (talk) 11:14, November 17, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


It was referred to as the empty itself. but that would be super confusing. Cosmic Personification of the Empty? sure. Kind of like how the Horsemen are personifications of the things they represent. While death itself is always existing, the personification is something else. Lygarx (talk) 07:25, December 22, 2018 (UTC)

Older than OldEdit

I recently updated the Primordial Entities adding Cosmic Entity as one, but it has reversed by some unregistrated user. 

I know, I know: it has not been confirmed. But taking into consideration its name (Cosmic Entity), power, and the fact that is pretty much the part of the place that is so old it predates even Creation itself, I think it is pretty safe to assume that Cos is indeed primordial entity.

Also, I think that both pages should be protected. 

The Star is falling - Greet the First Dawn! 05:52, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with this. I still don't get why this is still a debate, to be honest. Touchinos (talk) 06:39, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


The admins overruled us, that's why. Zane said that no explicit statement of age has been given.ThomasNealy (talk) 06:53, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

ThomasNealy is correct, I tried making similar edits as yours, Greet the First Dawn!, as did Admin WarGrowlmon18 prior to me, but then I was told by Admin SeraphLucifer that although there wasn't an agreement on the Cosmic Entity's status, it was his duty to remove unconfirmed information. But the problem is that SeraphLucifer failed to address his decision to other users on this nor on the Primordial Entities talk page and also as I hazard to say he (as well as Blaziken rjcf) "falsely" cited Age of the Entity discussion as where it had had been discussed and decided that Cosmic Entity is not primordial entity which I do not disagree with ThomasNealy as abuse of Admin powers. 70.93.90.147 08:08, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't know abuse of power if you and everyone who knows you was permanently banned from every website for life. The discussion revealed that there's some doubt about the Entity's age. SeraphLucifer's duty as an admin is therefore to remove unconfirmed information and speculation. While I also think the Cosmic Entity is a primordial, I also acknowledge there's room for doubt.

Orion (T-B-C) 10:31, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first of all. Neither Seraph nor I have ever abused our admin powers, to say that is a lie, when this wiki would be in much better shape if we abused these powers. Orion is correct and quite simply said it best. However, I can see that this is a major issue and my letting you all resolve it on your own was a bad idea... Reopen the debate and I'll try convincing Seraph to reconsider his position on this matter. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:04, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased that some of you are stepping up though and trying to resolve this maturely and without edit warring. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:12, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

Yes inactive, but I work full time so yeah. But while it’s speculative on both sides. The Cosmic Entity said to Castiel. “In all of forever”. Yes it’s subjective but the entity did have knowledge that the Empty predates God or even Amara and knows her name. (Yes could be a write’s mistake, or its awareness of the world even while sleeping). Plus I think we should list it’s species as a Cosmic Entity/Being as both itself and Castiel call it such a thing. It’s not like it’s a demon calling it something else.

As the Primordial Entities are somewhat interpreting the family tree of Amara, God, his Archangels is fine. But if all it is to predate creation than why not add the entity to the list? Last time I checked Death isn’t related to God, Amara, or his Archangels. I see the Entity meets the requirements for the page.

  • 1. Predates the Universe

We don't know that it predates the universe, that's the thing. The Empty does, but the Entity did not necessarily originate at the same time as the Empty, or even before the universe. As far as we know, it's the essence of the first being who went there, or even a caretaker created by God.

Orion (T-B-C) 18:02, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

If it was a caretaker created by God then God would not be limited in what he could do there. The entity said that only he had power there. In the same way the first thing to go there would not have more power either as it would have to have been a creation by God or a corrupted creation (demons) for it to have gone there after it died. So either it self manifested at some point or it is part of the empty it self. Its independence from the rest of creation's power structure itself supports a Primordial status.

ThomasNealy (talk) 18:29, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

Unless Chuck gave it full control over the Empty and it just decided to pull a Davy Jones.

And FYI, a primordial is an entity that has existed before the universe's creation. It does not mean what you think it means.

Orion (T-B-C) 18:38, November 23, 2017 (UTC)


I know full well what a Primordial is both in the context of this wiki and as the actual definition. In this wiki it means from before time(ie. Creation). But it can also mean basic or early stages. However that is beside the point. You miss understood what I was trying to say. My point was that only something that was either A) not created by the creator of the universe, or B) something that predated the creation of the universe. Could be out side of the power structure of said universe, ie. God holds no power over it or its domain and neither does the Darkness. Do to these theories is what I think supports its status, as self manifesting after the other beings and after creation began is unlikely. That was my point. But go on continue to be condescending, it's ok.ThomasNealy (talk) 23:29, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

But Blaze, the Entity did say “In all of forever”. Yes it’s subjective as he could have meant in such a long time. But there isn’t evidence to say it’s age being older or younger than Creation ok. But it’s race is a Cosmic Entity/Being. As it called itself such a being and so did Castiel. One subjective but more than one confirming something sounds like evidence to me.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:39, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

@ThomasNealy: Eve came after the universe and is not known to have been created by Chuck, as did three of the Four Horsemen, fairies, and Pagan Gods, to name a few. As far as we know, they're all, as you put it, "self-manifesting", and yet they're not primordials.

But do continue to assume I was being condescending rather than try to clear up a potential source of confusion, it's OK.

@Twilight:

Cosmic Entity, sure. Primordial? Maybe, maybe not. That's all this argument is about, whether or not this entity is a primordial.

Orion (T-B-C) 23:41, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas. The Entity never said Amara had no power over the Empty, only the not even God has any power over the Empty. Maybe no point stating Amara when God has no ability to affect the void. But it never did state Amara also is powerless when it came to the void. And @Blaze, if it’s fine I’ll change it’s species from Unknown to Cosmic Being.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:57, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

plot hole? Edit

the entity tells castiel something like "

the entity disbelieved this and stated that only it has power over the Empty with not even God having power there."

but this doesn't make sense as god has brought him back many times.Nailo1 (talk) 00:55, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

It's not a plot hole at all, God just recreated Castiel, not resurrected. It's why there were so many problems with Cas each time, like losing his memories. There are several Castiels in the Empty, one for each that died, save the latest one.72.239.90.248 18:21, August 4, 2018 (UTC)



... which is why the paragraph stating

"The Entity had stated God has no power over The Empty but the latter has been able to resurrect Castiel multiple times. This brings up the question as to how he did so in the past."

is wrong. God did not resurrect Castiel but *rebuilt* him.

195.82.64.222 08:57, August 6, 2018 (UTC)

Look at season 6. During a flash back when Lucifer made Castiel explode it showed him reform and be restored to full Angel hood. God likely meant rebuilt as putting back the broken vessel and fragmented spiritual essence that makes him up back to together. Why he didn’t for when the reaper April killed or when Lucifer killed him at the end of season 12 is unknown. Likely because he was basically human when April killed him, and likely because he was still having the “family meeting” with Amara and completely ignored creation again when Lucifer killed him a second time.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:05, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

We're not doing this again. Touchinos (talk) 01:30, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

Just trying to prevent a lot of unnecessary edits and undoing of those edits.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:38, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh no, I wasn't referring to you. Just the post in general. 😅 Touchinos (talk) 03:09, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

OmnipresenceEdit

Should be consider the Entity omnipresent? He seems to be everywhere in the Empty.

Should we put the Shadow as part of the Empty, instead of simply a resident of it? As Naomi and Castiel said the “Empty” wanted Jack.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 18:42, December 7, 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't know yet. Too little information at the moment.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 20:04, December 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • The Shadow is The Empty itself. It’s canon, so yes. Touchinos (talk) 22:45, December 13, 2018 (UTC)

At least the Shadow is part/connected to the Empty.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 22:47, December 13, 2018 (UTC)

Its exact connection to the Empty beyond residing there is unconfirmed. Calling it that might've just been characters way of simplifying it.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 00:41, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

Immortality 



- he can be killed with the Equalizer gun created by god —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:2411:8004:3A00:94EF:1C4E:D49E:AF64 (talkcontribs)

The Shadow doesn't just control the Empty - he is a personification of it Edit

The Shadow has been referred to as the Empty itself before. This happened again in the last episode, when Jack told Castiel that, "the Empty doesn't exactly... like you." SonOfEve (talk) 05:17, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

  • I think you're right but we have no proof of that, at least not yet.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 14:21, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

But with Jack’s statement at the very least the Entity is directly part or connected to the Empty and worth notating.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 17:33, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

  • Which statement??? Because this is pretty much speculation.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 22:21, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Jack told Castiel the Empty doesn’t like Castiel. While that by itself isn’t much and more interpretive. But Castiel said explicitly in season 14 “You are the Empty?” And The Shadow when possessing Dumah confirmed as much. This isn’t speculative as the Shadow is at least connected to the Empty and not just its ruler.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 22:50, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

  • Everyone calls this damn thing a whole bunch of names and its so confusing: Cosmic Entity, the Shadow and the Empty. And yeah, Jack and Cas have both called it the Empty, but its never been outright stated to be its personification when the Shadow itself stated that it was some sort of cosmic being that appeared to reside there. I think you're right, I do, but we can't list this thing as the personification of the Empty just because several characters call it the Empty.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 05:55, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say it was the personification of it. However, the Shadow by these statements is at least directly connected to the Empty. Even it’s first appearance proves that, that Castiel woke up waking it up. If it wasn’t connected to the realm than it being awake wouldn’t have effected it. As the rulers of the other afterlifes, Hell, Heaven, Purgatory, etc what happens to the beings inside their realms doesn’t effect the rulers.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 11:58, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, at the very least, the Shadow is somehow connected to the Empty. However, I think we should either get confirmation from a writer about how deep that connection goes, or wait and see what happens on the show, before putting it on the article.

Orion (T-B-C) 15:47, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

I know, I know. If you look further up the talk page, where I was talking with someone about the damn thing's name a few days ago, you'll see I expressed similar sentiments there. Frankly this damn thing is probably like Tartarus in the Percy Jackson series but we just don't know anything for sure. The only thing we know about this thing's nature is it called itself the "neighborhood Cosmic Entity" or something like that. They give us like ten names for this damn thing and no real answers about what it is exactly.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:12, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

In my view, talk's posts, reminding us that the Shadow itself confirmed that he's the Empty, is as good as a confirmation from the show. SonOfEve (talk) 05:16, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

To me that's just a title and nothing more, which I already added.--Mgdodl (talk) 07:04, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.