i mean imo unless there’s indisputable evidence to back something up then it’s subjective

so from my point of view god’s existance would be subjective

@ham addition that's not how objectivity works

Though

You could say that all systems is morality are objective.

Subjectivity means there is no right answer. Objectivity means there is a right answer, whether we know what the right answer is or not

No.

It means that a person's judgment based on facts can not be swayed by opinion, or feeling.

So if there were facts to support both arguments, both could be objective. By the definition of the word.

Then it is a matter of who is more right.

i mean you can’t really solidly prove that god exists with facts, all we can go off is opinions

I wouldn't call Faith an opinion.

subjective

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 faith is an opinion

Definition of objective

1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :having reality independent of the mind objective reality

if its not opinion, its fact

and we all know faith isnt fact

no matter how hard you believe in it, we dont use god in science or mathematics

yes

A search for what God is, is what sent us down the path of discovery.

^

k what’s the connection

A hunger for knowledge of why it is that God did what he did.

Which lead to philosophy, which lead to modern science.

Now we argue over what is right, or wrong, and gauge how right something is compared to another.

Morality is objective, meaning it has a truth element outside of the mind. Moral systems are constructs built off of that objective truth

I don't think there is anything in modern morality that is "outside the mind".

Perhaps if I saw somebody struck by lightning out of a blue sky for doing something immoral, then there would be proof of an objective morality.

Sure there are, things like degeneracy and the negative effect it has on those people and their society.

Why must the consequences be immediate and obvious?

An agreed upon set of ethics and decisions on what is more right won't sway me. I think there is justification for morality, but no true morality that presides above the rest.

‘degeneracy’ is one of the most subjective things out there

It's like, what is the difference between righteous anger, and indignation to you?

Not really. If you believe in degeneracy, it becomes pretty obvious what are degenerate acts, naturally there will be edge cases as there are in everything.

When does killing become murder?

When does indulgence become degenerate?

Murder is easily defined. Premeditated and unjustified killing

Who decides what is Just when it comes to killing?

Ideally it shouldn't be a "who". There should be some standard which determines what is justification

But that's not how the Courts work.

Because humans aren't capable of attaining perfect objectivity