Murder is definitely objectively defined.

That's why we have courts to solve through the gray areas and exceptions.

Surely a collection of good things is more good right? But then there is no maximal element.

Surely a collection of good things is more good right? But then there is no maximal element.

An objective definition would be unambiguous and apply to all beings equally everywhere. Laws are not objective.

"Maximal element"..are we just making chit up now. There is only one standard of righteousness, and we derive that from God

Good is not necessarily a quantity.

Good can be a quality.

God is the maximal element.

Laws are not objective? Hahahahahaaahhahahah


Yeah tell that to any lawyer or judge.

An objective definition would be unambiguous and apply to all beings equally everywhere. Laws are not objective.

Again, how is this ordering defined? I can keep taking power sets and creating new sets that are more good. This process never terminates. Also, if apples are good, and God is good, surely God and an apple is strictly even better. So there is no maximal. If God is good, surely 2 Gods are strictly even better.

Does every being in the universe follow the same laws? We don't even use the same laws for our states lol.

I would. It's not objective. Law is not a science and also not mathematical. Laws are manmade and defined based on preferences of societies.

God is the uncaused cause. God is the first mover in ordering.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This we call God.

God is the maximal because you can't give what you don't have. The apple is contingent on God. Whereas God is self-existing.

Mathematics is just law with numbers.

Math, logic, law. These 3 are brothers.

Law is about justice and fairness. It is definitely objective just like math and logic. Lawyers have to be very logical.

Do you really want to tell a lawyer that law is not objective?

You want to argue with a lawyer?? Hahahaha

Lawyers specialize in arguing. You would get destroyed by a lawyer.

Misc Lawyers where you at???

Yes, I recognize the twelve Olympian gods and goddesses

Ares is my boi

Warrior culture cannot exist without religious culture. They go hand in hand, all throughout human history. One does not exist without the other.

This is why religion makes the ugly, weak, manlets, cowards, spineless, limpwristed ****g0ts recoil so much. They inherently know that religion goes against their nature. Against their genes. So they rebel against it. It's a coping mechanism for the fact that they got fukked over by Mother Nature.

Try to imagine yourself a country or society without a warrior culture and you will quickly see how quickly it devolves into clown world. Warrior culture/Strong men keep degeneracy in check. Always has and always will. This is why degenerate atheists can't stand strong men/religion.

Uh, doesn't Christianity cater to the meek, poor, and uneducated?

Power resides where strength lies in warrior culture. Power in religion resides wroth God, and makes humans equal.

Not in the fascist version of Christianity. The guy already said he thinks nazi is a compliment and a good thing. He also denies the holocaust and thinks Hitler was a swell guy. Frankly, he's only a Christian in name. He clearly doesn't apply any of the ideas. Ditto for Paul Kreul.

Wait, you think Dems out supported the Civil rights act and not Conservative Christians? Are you serious?

Civil Rights Act
The House:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

The Senate :
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

So more Republicans supported the Civil Rights act than Dems.

You also must have forgot the Eisenhower in 57 that the Dems forced him to water down to get passed.

You probably say that the racist Dems jump ship after the Civil Rights act. So heres a list of Racists in the government at the time:

Notable Dixiecrats who remained Democratics after 1964:

Rep. John Rarick D-LA
Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor D-AL

Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Governors:

Gov. Orval Faubus D-AR
Gov. Frank M. Dixon D-AL
Gov. Benjamin Travis Laney D-AR
Gov. William H. Murray D-OK
Gov. George Wallace D-AL
Gov. Lester Maddox D-GA
Gov. Fielding Wright D-MS

Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Senators:

Sen. B. Everett Jordan D-NC
Sen. A. Willis Robertson D-V
Sen. Olin D. Johnston D-SC
Sen. Sam Ervin D-NC
Sen. J. Lister Hill D-AL
Sen. John C. Stennis D-MS
Sen. James Eastland D-MS
Sen. Allen J. Ellender D-LA
Sen. Russell B. Long D-LA
Sen. John Sparkman D-AL
Sen. John “Little” McClellan D-AR
Sen. Richard Russell, Jr. D-GA
Sen. Herman Talmadge D-GA
Sen. Robert Carlyle Byrd D-WV
Sen. Harry F. Byrd D-V
Sen. Al Gore, Sr. D-TN
Sen. Spessard Holland D-FL
Sen. Herbert S. Walters D-TN
Sen. George Smathers D-FL

Here is a list of all those that switched parties:

Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D-VA
Sen. Jesse Helms, Jr. D-NC
Sen. Strom Thurmond D-SC


But yeah... it was all the "liberal north v conservative south" right?

fukin retards in here

Is God and an apple more good than just God?

No, because goodness is derived from God.

Everything comes from God.

But I would say apples existing is greater than apples not existing, because apples are delicious.

You are going like this: God + 1.

And it's not like that.

...

Laws are invented by people and do not apply universally. They are not objective at all. There is no instruction telling us what the right system of government or laws are. That's why war exists.

Why not? If God is good, and apples are good, why isn't God and an apple even better?

Because God + 1 still equals God.

God + 1 = God.

Why not? If God is good, and apples are good, why isn't God and an apple even better?

So having God and an apple is equivalent to having God? So God somehow contains equivalent goodness of infinitely many apples? Assuming this holds for every other good thing, couldn't I consider the set of all such subsets of good things that God contains equivalent goodness for? But then we know from math this set cannot be put in 1:1 correspondence to the set of good things God has equivalent goodness to. It is strictly bigger and thus more good. Since God has equivalent goodness to God, we just showed something was better than God by your own assumptions...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem

So having God and an apple is equivalent to having God? So God somehow contains equivalent goodness of infinitely many apples? Assuming this holds for every other good thing, couldn't I consider the set of all such subsets of good things that God contains equivalent goodness for? But then we know from math this set cannot be put in 1:1 correspondence to the set of good things God has equivalent goodness to. It is strictly bigger and thus more good. Since God has equivalent goodness to God, we just showed something was better than God by your own assumptions...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem

Hmm

I think you got a point.

Something is better than nothing.

God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

There could be a being that created this universe. That's possible. But my issue is with stuff like saying it is maximally good, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. It's impossible. There may be a being that created this universe. But I doubt it is aware of us, and I couldn't even begin to imagine what sort of universe it exists in. We'd also still have this recursive issue of how anything came to be. Perhaps the being created itself or was always there or maybe there is an infinite chain of creations and it has always been. But even to ask about creation involves anthropomorphizing an external being. Like if something were truly outside of the universe, we don't even know it has any timeline at all. It certainly couldn't consistently define a temporal order for all events in the universe. And we have no way of understanding what that type of external universe this being would reside in is like.

There could be a being that created this universe. That's possible. But my issue is with stuff like saying it is maximally good, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. It's impossible. There may be a being that created this universe. But I doubt it is aware of us, and I couldn't even begin to imagine what sort of universe it exists in. We'd also still have this recursive issue of how anything came to be. Perhaps the being created itself or was always there or maybe there is an infinite chain of creations and it has always been. But even to ask about creation involves anthropomorphizing an external being. Like if something were truly outside of the universe, we don't even know it has any timeline at all. It certainly couldn't consistently define a temporal order for all events in the universe. And we have no way of understanding what that type of external universe this being would reside in is like.

Your parents created you.

A lot of religion more or less tries to replace the dynamics of an ideal nuclear family. The wisdom of how ideal nuclear families work better than dysfunctional families is both true and useful.