Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

ReverendRV

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
41
56
Georgia
✟2,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
I would respond to this by saying that there is no God and morality is subjective. Without God, the question of whether God loves moral people because they are moral, or are they moral because God loves them becomes irrelevant. And the fact that people have differing viewpoints on moral issues such as same sex marriage, capital punishment for certain crimes, or even on issues such as whether it is acceptable to use smacking as a punishment for a disobedient child shows that there is no objective morality.
Hey Kylie...

Regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma, would you say that if a Transcendent Morality is Subjective; the person Objectifies it? If Morality is Subjective, Euthyphro didn't have a Dilemma; just as you do not have a Dilemma living however you like...

In Theology there is the Principle of Unity. It basically says that if you gather All the Gods in a room, the God whose Will wins out is the 'Most High' God; and they All are Unified under him. Using this Principle, God Objectifies Morality. Saying that Morality is Subjective even to God, is only a momentary bump. He Objectifies Subjective Morality, the same way you Objectify Subjective Morality in your life...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When a husband lives his life as if he's a ‘Swinging Single’ because of his Subjective Morality (which Relativists affirm), instead of Objective Morality (which they deny); then I've proven the Transcendent Laws of Logic provide them the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
What if this husband lives his life that way because of objective morality? If he says according to Objective morality, a man can have multiple women and lovers even though he is married, how would you prove him objective morally wrong?

Care to answer my question?
Again; Can you give an example of a moral dilemma that does not just so happen to align with your personal moral views? Or do you believe yourself to be morally perfect, and anyone who disagrees with you is objective morally wrong.
 
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
41
56
Georgia
✟2,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
What if this husband lives his life that way because of objective morality? If he says according to Objective morality, a man can have multiple women and lovers even though he is married, how would you prove him objective morally wrong?

Care to answer my question?
Again; Can you give an example of a moral dilemma that does not just so happen to align with your personal moral views? Or do you believe yourself to be morally perfect, and anyone who disagrees with you is objective morally wrong.
A man can't live that way and call it Objective Morality because of the Covenant of Marriage; his wife objects. You move the goal posts. The Marriage Covenant is what he agrees to, so he would be living Subjectively. Also remember that he lives like a Married Bachelor. This violates the Law of Contradiction...
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A man can't live that way and call it Objective Morality because of the Covenant of Marriage; his wife objects.
But if he did, how would you prove him wrong? And suppose his wives do not object? How many men of the Bible had multiple wives without their wives objecting?
You move the goal posts. The Marriage Covenant is what he agrees to, so he would be living Subjectively.
No; if the marriage covenant he agreed to included having multiple wives, why isn’t that objective?
Also remember that he lives like a Married Bachelor. This violates the Law of Contradiction...
No; he lives like a married man with multiple wives; something that’s been done forever, and still goes on today.
 
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
41
56
Georgia
✟2,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
But if he did, how would you prove him wrong? And suppose his wives do not object? How many men of the Bible had multiple wives without their wives objecting?

No; if the marriage covenant he agreed to included having multiple wives, why isn’t that objective?

No; he lives like a married man with multiple wives; something that’s been done forever, and still goes on today.
I would prove him wrong by referring to the example for the Law of Contradiction known as the Married Bachelor. This example covers the Married Bachelor who has one wife; or 300 wives. Changing the number of wives is an attempt to move the goalposts, but that is moot because the Category remains that of a Married Bachelor; no matter how many wives there are. A Married Bachelor is supposed to be an example of something that cannot Logically exist; like a square Circle. But a husband who dates other women is a Playa, playing a Bachelor. So you should agree that Adultery is Illogical; a Logical Fallacy. This is how the Laws of Logic prove the Ten Commandments...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would prove him wrong by referring to the example for the Law of Contradiction known as the Married Bachelor. This example covers the Married Bachelor who has one wife; or 300 wives. Changing the number of wives is an attempt to move the goalposts, but that is moot because the Category remains that of a Married Bachelor; no matter how many wives there are. A Married Bachelor is supposed to be an example of something that cannot Logically exist; like a square Circle. But a husband who dates other women is a Playa, playing a Bachelor. So you should agree that Adultery is Illogical; a Logical Fallacy. This is how the Laws of Logic prove the Ten Commandments...
A bachelor is a man who is unmarried, so a married bachelor is a contradiction in terms; not a moral issue.
I was referring to the claim you made of a married man bringing home another woman as an example of subjective morality; as if this wouldn’t take place under objective morality. I’m saying whether a man has a wife and a girlfriend, or multiple wives and girlfriends, if he justifies his actions calling it objective morality, you have no logical way of refuting his claim.
Again; care to answer my question?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,769
620
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟180,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No; I never said that. Again; I said as humans the only means we have to verify is via empirical observations. Whether or not there are other ways mankind does not know about is NOT something I’ve addressed.
Verify what exactly.
No it does not.
OK so therefore all empirical science is doing is describing one aspect of reality and cannot claim reality is physical.

Again; I did not say that.
You said "the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations".

No. When someone disputes a non-material phenomena, they are saying there is no proof to support your claim
But they are only disputing the non-material by a limited method of science that cannot even measure the non-material. So you cannot say there is no proof at all but only that there is no proof according to empirical measures. Therefore science cannot make claims about reality because its limited in what it can measure and there may be other ways of measuring reality.

No. You were pointing out how people readily accept claims concerning other historical figures who didn’t write anything down, but will not do the same for Jesus. That is what I was refuting.
You compared the claims about a military general and Christ and said its harder to believe Christs claims than that of the military general. You are talking about whether the claim is believable or not. But I am only talking about whether Christ and others made those claims in the first place and not whether they are believable. Its one thing to prove Christ claims and another to prove the claims are true. .

The King James Bible And The Ethiopian Bible: What's The Difference?
Not trying to derail the thread, but my point was that there was a lot more written about Jesus than what is in your Bible, and some of those writings do not align with what your bible says.
The Ethiopian bible contains the books the church rejected for good reason. But it also contains the 4 gospels which align with the King James bible.

The accepted books are deemed consistent with each other and the rejected books contradict the Bible in some places. Some claim Christ was not crucified and resurrected which is the main tenet of Christianity.

When we are gathering evidence for anything we look at consistent witness testimony and reject those that are inconsistent. So we can have 27 books in the New Testament written by at least 9 different authors that are consistent and 1 that is inconsistent. Which one should we be suspicious of. The inconsistent one. Especially when non-biblical text supports the King James Bible and not these other ones.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Verify what exactly.
Verify whether something is real/truth or not, anything else requires faith; a poor way of attempting to establish the truth.
OK so therefore all empirical science is doing is describing one aspect of reality and cannot claim reality is physical.
Science is describing the only aspect of reality we know of. If another aspect of reality were found, science would be all over it.
You said "the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations".
True! Because that is the only method we know of. As far as if there could be other methods we are unaware of is not something I’ve addressed.
But they are only disputing the non-material by a limited method of science that cannot even measure the non-material. So you cannot say there is no proof at all but only that there is no proof according to empirical measures.
I’m saying mankind (you included) have no proof. Again; all you might have is faith
Therefore science cannot make claims about reality because its limited in what it can measure and there may be other ways of measuring reality.
No. Even if there are aspects of reality science doesn’t know of, they can still make claims about reality that it does know of; like that which can be verified via empirical means.
I’m saying mankind (you included) have no proof. Again; all you might have is faith
You compared the claims about a military general and Christ and said its harder to believe Christs claims than that of the military general. You are talking about whether the claim is believable or not. But I am only talking about whether Christ and others made those claims in the first place and not whether they are believable. Its one thing to prove Christ claims and another to prove the claims are true. .
I’ve never disputed that other people have made claims of Jesus, I’ve disputed this claim that we know what Jesus actually said. Jesus never wrote anything down so the only thing we know is what other people claimed he said. You just choose to take some people at their word, and not others.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,769
620
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟180,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Go by the larger sources? No. You need to realize; entire religions rests on these claims. If it were proven that Jesus was never crucified and rose from the dead, the Christian religion would be proven false.
If it were proven that Jesus WAS crucified and rose from the dead, the entire religion of Islam would be proven false.
Christians have their outside sources that suggest their Bible is true, Muslims have their outside sources that suggest their Koran is true. People believe what they want, I personally have my doubts concerning both books.
That doesn't make sense. Both cannot be true at the same time. For example the Quoran says Jesus was not crucified. But non-biblical support says he was ie

Tacitus
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus

Phlegon

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place

Lucian of Samosata
The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account

No. We just need to point to specific claims that are untrue, and call them lies. It would be foolish to reject everything a person says simply because they got 1 or 2 things wrong IMO
OK so some of the claims about Jesus which are in the Bible and supported by non-biblical evidence are true.

All claims? So when Nichodemus came to Jesus in the middle of the night and admitted what he did, who witnessed this event in order for it to get into your bible? They were alone remember?
When Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, who witnessed the details of that event in order for it to get into your Bible? His Disciples were all asleep remember? Are you sure ALL claims were by eye witnesses?
It could be that Jesus told them. You have to remember that His disciples were with Him most of the time and conversations about what he had to do and was doing would come up. The disciples knew Jesus was going to the garden to pray and he may have expressed His fear and worry about the coming events as they were walking to the garden.

As far as Nichodemus is concerned the most likely thing is it was Nichodemus who spoke about his experience as he was a head Pharisee who often spoke of stories and lessons. Oral narratives were the way in which people passed on information.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It could be that Jesus told them. You have to remember that His disciples were with Him most of the time and conversations about what he had to do and was doing would come up. The disciples knew Jesus was going to the garden to pray and he may have expressed His fear and worry about the coming events as they were walking to the garden.
So Jesus prayed alone, then went back and described in great detail to his Disciples how his sweat were as drops of blood? Sounds a bit melodramatic, but okay.
As far as Nichodemus is concerned the most likely thing is it was Nichodemus who spoke about his experience as he was a head Pharisee who often spoke of stories and lessons. Oral narratives were the way in which people passed on information.
Nichodemus was the top Pharisee during that time. Do you really think he is going to go public and admit Jesus was right and they were wrong? If he were that bold, I doubt he would have gone to Jesus in the middle of the night when nobody was looking, but would have admitted this without fear of being seen.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,862
4,999
✟257,184.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hey Kylie...

Regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma, would you say that if a Transcendent Morality is Subjective; the person Objectifies it?

How exactly would a person take something which is subjective and make it objective?

Does this mean I can take my objective opinion that Star trek is better than Star Wars and somehow make it OBJECTIVELY true? Please tell me how I can do this, as it will allow me to win many more arguments about this topic in several Facebook groups I'm in.

In Theology there is the Principle of Unity. It basically says that if you gather All the Gods in a room, the God whose Will wins out is the 'Most High' God; and they All are Unified under him. Using this Principle, God Objectifies Morality. Saying that Morality is Subjective even to God, is only a momentary bump. He Objectifies Subjective Morality, the same way you Objectify Subjective Morality in your life...

This seems to be working from the assumption that at least one God is real. Therefore, it's a circular argument. You're essentially saying that if we assume there is at least one God, you can show that there is at least one God. If there are no Gods at all, then there can not be any God whose will wins out, and thus the title of "most high God" will never be claimed.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,769
620
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟180,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Verify whether something is real/truth or not, anything else requires faith; a poor way of attempting to establish the truth.
And how do you verify something is real and truthful.

Science is describing the only aspect of reality we know of. If another aspect of reality were found, science would be all over it.
Actually science tries to explain realities we don't know like Multiverses Simulation theory and Hologram realities. These have other dimensions that are beyond our physics and reality.

We know that reality is more than what science can describe. We can consciously experience colours and be moved by music or the sensation of taste, the agony of pain and our experience is a fact. Science says these come from the physical brain yet the evidence shows the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences.

True! Because that is the only method we know of. As far as if there could be other methods we are unaware of is not something I’ve addressed.
Actually its not the only method. There is testimony, logical propositions. If I testify that I love my wife how does my wife or anyone for that matter prove what I said was true. What about Math. Many theories in physics are based on Math. So technically the Math is not proving anything material but rather posing theoretical physics working to equations and formulas.

No. Even if there are aspects of reality science doesn’t know of, they can still make claims about reality that it does know of; like that which can be verified via empirical means.
The problem is the stuff science doesn't know about like dark matter, consciousness, the origin of the universe are equated only in material terms.

So as Karl Popper said science is offering a promissory note that it will find the answers to everything in a material way even before they know it. That's the assumption.
I’m saying mankind (you included) have no proof. Again; all you might have is faith
I think your getting stuck on scientific 'proof' and missing the other ways we can know reality. For example Indigenous people practice spirituality and have done for 1,000's of years ironically up until western material science came along. They have managed to survive for 1,000's of years living in harmony with nature. The west has destroyed the planet in a couple of 100 years and everyone is stressed and worried.

I’ve never disputed that other people have made claims of Jesus, I’ve disputed this claim that we know what Jesus actually said. Jesus never wrote anything down so the only thing we know is what other people claimed he said. You just choose to take some people at their word, and not others.
But just about all historical figures didn't write things down and had others do it many years later. So that can't be a valid objection.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,769
620
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟180,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So Jesus prayed alone, then went back and described in great detail to his Disciples how his sweat were as drops of blood? Sounds a bit melodramatic, but okay.
It could be a number of things. Jesus may have still been sweating when he came back to the disciples. One or more of the disciples did not fall asleep in an instant and heard some of the Jesus's words. The story only says that when Jesus came back the disciples were asleep so they may have taken time to nod off.

Nichodemus was the top Pharisee during that time. Do you really think he is going to go public and admit Jesus was right and they were wrong? If he were that bold, I doubt he would have gone to Jesus in the middle of the night when nobody was looking, but would have admitted this without fear of being seen.
When Nichodemus went to talk with Christ that night he was more curious. He had heard the stories and even witnessed miraculous acts. He wanted to find out what was happening. People were calling Jesus the Messiah and that was a big claim.

But after Nichodemus did talk to Jesus he came to the same conclusion that Christ must be the Messiah and from then he was against putting Jesus on trial and was arguing with the other Pharisees. As he was the top Pharisee he had respect from the others so for him to acknowledge Christ was a big thing. But he was convinced it was true.

Another possibility is that some Disciples were listening to what they were talking about outside the window or somewhere close by.

Anyway I didn't want to derail the thread talking about the truth or Christs claims. Whats relevant to the thread is that we are talking about the truth of peoples testimony. How do we know to trust that testimony or claim as true.

This happens a lot in our life where we have to sense what is true as either there isn't enough time to do all the investigations or purely measuring what is true by empirical measures cannot convince someone completely.

There are other influences on how we can know something is true. Belief in someone or something is not completely blind. We are constantly processing and assessing whats happening. We don't even understand this process as there are unconscious processes involved.

But the point is we can measure the truth in different ways. Not just empirically but through our experience and intuition. We are a multi-dimensional being so we should not restrict ways of knowing what is true or real to the science method.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Don't look directly at me
Mar 11, 2017
8,456
7,510
52
USA
✟181,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've selected only the parts talking about physics for response.

Actually science tries to explain realities we don't know like Multiverses Simulation theory and Hologram realities. These have other dimensions that are beyond our physics and reality.

1. I think you need to add some commas "Multiverses, Simulation theory, and Hologram realities" as multiverses and simulation theory are not the same thing. (I don't expect that you think they are, but the sentence is confusing as written.)

2. The holographic principle is something that arises from some versions of string theory. Multiverses are a consequence of some versions of inflation. Simulation theory is a fantasy propagated by people who don't understand physics, simulation, or both.

3. Multiverses and the holographic principle are beyond our current physics for the very reason that they come from explorations of physics beyond what is known to explain our current physics as a sub-set of that more comprehensive set.

4. Simulation theory is beyond reality, but it isn't physics, nor does it seem to have any traction in cosmology. It seems largely supported by people who think "wow, what if the whole universe was just a holodeck simulation" while watching TNG high.

We know that reality is more than what science can describe. We can consciously experience colours and be moved by music or the sensation of taste, the agony of pain and our experience is a fact. Science says these come from the physical brain yet the evidence shows the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences.

OK, this is neurobiology, but if you check in with them you will find that your "the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences" statement is most definitely shown by neurobiology. [And physics had demonstrated that nothing outside the currently known physics could be interacting with the brain to create consciousness anyway, because if there was it would have been detected.]

The problem is the stuff science doesn't know about like dark matter, consciousness, the origin of the universe are equated only in material terms.

Nope. Science knows what all of those things are. While you should be aware of consciousness without science and could speculate that the Universe had a beginning without science, dark matter is *only* known because of science -- in particular astronomy.

Dark matter -- we actually know a lot about dark matter. We know how much there is (total mass density). We know how it is distributed. Because we know how clumpy dark matter is we know how hot it is (what the mean kinetic energy is) and thus how massive the particles of DM must be (approximately). For example it couldn't be ordinary neutrinos. We also know that it doesn't interact with light. What we don't know is what particle (or particles) constitute DM. Those particle likely haven't been detected yet as none of the known particles fit the bill.

Consciousness -- certainly science has done some extensive studies of consciousness and what aspects of the physical world affect it, where it can and can't be found, etc. All studies to date indicate that consciousness is a property of living brains and is not found elsewhere.

Origin of the Universe -- we have explored quite far back to when the Universe was very different than today, in fact so far back that what we know about physics starts to breakdown. This is, of course, exactly where those extended "supersets" of physics are needed and most provide little leverage for testing them. It does therefore look rather speculative, but I see no reason to think that any exploration (successful or not) needs to multiply things with the unphysical.

So as Karl Popper said science is ...

Don't really care what Popper said.
 
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
41
56
Georgia
✟2,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
How exactly would a person take something which is subjective and make it objective?

Does this mean I can take my objective opinion that Star trek is better than Star Wars and somehow make it OBJECTIVELY true? Please tell me how I can do this, as it will allow me to win many more arguments about this topic in several Facebook groups I'm in.



This seems to be working from the assumption that at least one God is real. Therefore, it's a circular argument. You're essentially saying that if we assume there is at least one God, you can show that there is at least one God. If there are no Gods at all, then there can not be any God whose will wins out, and thus the title of "most high God" will never be claimed.
Yes; a Subjective opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is Objectively true "for you". If you were God, you would Objectify that Star Trek is superior. Your Omniscience would be the deciding factor...
 
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
41
56
Georgia
✟2,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
How exactly would a person take something which is subjective and make it objective?

Does this mean I can take my objective opinion that Star trek is better than Star Wars and somehow make it OBJECTIVELY true? Please tell me how I can do this, as it will allow me to win many more arguments about this topic in several Facebook groups I'm in.



This seems to be working from the assumption that at least one God is real. Therefore, it's a circular argument. You're essentially saying that if we assume there is at least one God, you can show that there is at least one God. If there are no Gods at all, then there can not be any God whose will wins out, and thus the title of "most high God" will never be claimed.
It's not working from that assumption, it's working from the assumption that many gods could exist...
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,981
1,637
✟202,688.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And how do you verify something is real and truthful.
I find empirically testing a pretty good method
Actually science tries to explain realities we don't know like Multiverses Simulation theory and Hologram realities. These have other dimensions that are beyond our physics and reality.
If that is true, you should have no problem pointing to a scientific theory where those things are mentioned; right? Go ahead; I'll wait....
We know that reality is more than what science can describe. We can consciously experience colours and be moved by music or the sensation of taste, the agony of pain and our experience is a fact. Science says these come from the physical brain yet the evidence shows the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences.
Science explains things we don't know about. We don't need science to explain colors, feelings, or thoughts.
Actually its not the only method. There is testimony, logical propositions. If I testify that I love my wife how does my wife or anyone for that matter prove what I said was true. What about Math. Many theories in physics are based on Math. So technically the Math is not proving anything material but rather posing theoretical physics working to equations and formulas.
I was talking about things with an actual existence. Love only exists in our heads. Math is a system we use to calculate numbers that represent things that do exist. Because we understand math and love we don't need natural science for those things.
The problem is the stuff science doesn't know about like dark matter, consciousness, the origin of the universe are equated only in material terms.
The fact that science does not have all the answers in not a problem; they continue to work on them
So as Karl Popper said science is offering a promissory note that it will find the answers to everything in a material way even before they know it. That's the assumption.
I don’t know who Karl Popper is, but he is wrong. There is no scientific theory that makes such a claim
I think your getting stuck on scientific 'proof' and missing the other ways we can know reality. For example Indigenous people practice spirituality and have done for 1,000's of years ironically up until western material science came along. They have managed to survive for 1,000's of years living in harmony with nature. The west has destroyed the planet in a couple of 100 years and everyone is stressed and worried.
How does the actions of indigenous people prove there is a reality outside the material world? Got anything else???
But just about all historical figures didn't write things down and had others do it many years later. So that can't be a valid objection.
Wrong. It’s a valid objection because they claim he preformed acts outside the laws of nature.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,862
4,999
✟257,184.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes; a Subjective opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars is Objectively true "for you".

It is objectively true that I hold a particular opinion. It does NOT mean that my opinion itself is objectively true.

If you were God, you would Objectify that Star Trek is superior. Your Omniscience would be the deciding factor...

That does not explain how "Star Trek is better than Star Wars" could ever become objectively true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,862
4,999
✟257,184.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not working from that assumption, it's working from the assumption that many gods could exist...

Hence I said "at least one God."

How many Gods are required? Is two gods sufficient? Three? Do you need more? How do you figure out how many God this argument needs?
 
  • :praying:
Reactions: ReverendRV
Upvote 0

Mr. Bultitude

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2022
221
66
Midwest
✟2,640.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That does not explain how "Star Trek is better than Star Wars" could ever become objectively true.
Some of what goes into making television shows is science and some of it is Science. We understand basically everything about how to write a compelling story. Most of the time when critics enjoy something and fans don't, it is because the writers were intentionally being subversive. Writing a story is a science and it is subjective. In contrast, we understand very little about how to shoot film without making a lot of mistakes. A big reason why the push into digital film and computer generated imagery is happening is so that it is easier to fix mistakes after they happen. Filming, especially analog photography, is a Science and it is objective. Media absolutely can be superior to other media if you are specific about your criteria.
 
Upvote 0