Why Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Trek is better than Star Wars because...

1. Star Trek relys on acting, and character development.

2. Star Trek uses special effects to compliment the movie, rather than special effects as the focal point of the film.

3. Star Trek is about people.

Both cover a large arc of time.

Star Trek is better because of Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, and Captain Janeway.

Star Trek is better because of Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Cmdr. Riker, Troi, Work, Data, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Guinen, Wesley, Jake, Kira, Odo, Jadzia, Ezri, Garak, Dr. Bashir, Chief Obrian, Kiko, Dukat, Chakota, Tom Paris, Tuvok, Harry Kim, The Doctor, Belana, Nelix, and Seven of Nine.

Star Trek is better because of villians like the Klingons, the Romulans, Cardasians, the Jem Hadar, the Founders, the Borg.

[Lurker 5]

Star Wars has Star Trek beaten in the villain department. Darth Vader is perhaps the greatest villain in cinema history.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I assume you are refering to the Darth Vader in Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back, and not the Return of the Jedi.

Your talking about the evil Darth, not the one who redeems himself. :roll:

[Morn 8]

Well said Joe.

And strange that a christian has problems with someone redeeming themself

[Romão 2,274]

For me, Star Wars is superior to Star Trek in every possible conceivable imaginable way.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sure...Alf.

Stefancos- :roll:

[Romão 2,274]

Whatever, Darth Kira.

[The Five Tones 302]

Because Trekkies/Trekkers don't waste their time and brainpower bashing their favourite franchise.

[ocelot 508]

I don't know, as much as I love Star Wars, even the worst trek is better than the last two star wars films..... Wait, except for the original trillogy, I just can't get into that. Music however is far superior with Star Wars. I love Goldsmith, but he is limited with what he can do orchestrally.

[stewdog1 50]

I actually like both equally. Now I prefer DS9 over just about anything, followed closely by ESB.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

For me, Star Wars is superior to Star Trek in every possible conceivable imaginable way.

watch the last 5 minutes of Star Trek the Next Generation's finale episode All Good Things ....

It is better than all of the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones combined. Or Watch the finale of DS9, it too is better than either TPM or AOTC, and it's space battles are better than any space battle in any Star Wars film, ANY.

[Morn 8]

Hmm, Ds9's finale was disapointing. Badly written script. It has by far the best pilot though.

TNG finale is pretty good but quite overrated.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

DS9's final episode was a complete piece of, um, crap. It was dumb, it was way too much. They tried to do somehing epic, big, but it was too little time for al that incoherent crap, and too bad bcause, although I never like DS9 very much, about two of them I would put them in the top 10 episodes I've seen from all Trek series(Enterprise is another thing).

[Morn 8]

I dunno what happened, maybe they were afraid of not doing something good enough that would live up to the series. And didn't try.

[Melange 446]

Star Wars has Star Trek beaten in the villain department.  Darth Vader is perhaps the greatest villain in cinema history.

Neil

Most women are known to at some stage comment on the head of the male sexual organ looking a little bit similar to Darth Vader's helmet, and for me that destroys any cred he may of had as a villain. LOL

For me, Star Trek is the top of all.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

1. Star Trek relys on acting, and character development.

Ummm Star Trek has som of the WORST actin on record. The acting of William Shatner alone is so horrible it requires new words to be invented to describe its badness.

2. Star Trek uses special effects to compliment the movie, rather than special effects as the focal point of the film.

That is because ST's Special Effects generally suck. They do not have the effects budget Lucas has. Otherwise they would "CG assault" you just like Lucas does now.
3. Star Trek is about people. 
SW is WAY more about people than ST. Hell the people in Star Trek BARELY act like real people.

[Morn 8]

Ummm Star Trek has som of the WORST actin on record. The acting of William Shatner alone is so horrible it requires new words to be invented to describe its badness.

Have you even seen Star Trek???

That is because ST's Special Effects generally suck. They do not have the effects budget Lucas has. Otherwise they would "CG assault" you just like Lucas does now.

They do use mostly CGI now! And haha, ST's special effects suck? They are by ILM!

[Melange 446]

Ummm Star Trek has som of the WORST actin on record. The acting of William Shatner alone is so horrible it requires new words to be invented to describe its badness.

Huh?. His acting is what makes Star Trek. His hammy emphasis on emotions and over done expressions when being tortured and the use of karate chops which he shows you coming 3 seconds before he strikes you, and all the use of Judo (which was very popular at that time) to throw aliens all over the dusty set of the studio. Hehehe. I love Kirk.

That is because ST's Special Effects generally suck.

Effects are'nt everything. In the original series they just did'nt have the means to do the effects so more emphasis was put on the stories i feel and i still feel the original series is the best one of the lot for that reason. It has immense humour in the original series because its so corny. Star wars take itself FAR too seriously (certainly 1+2 anyway). The more effects they started to get as time went on in Star Trek (Motion picture and Wrath of Khan aside), the less emphasis was put on the story.

They do not have the effects budget Lucas has.

Nobody has the budget Lucas has..hehe. and thank god.

SW is WAY more about people than ST.

Sorry . Cant agree with at all. Each to their own

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Nobody has the budget Lucas has..hehe. and thank god

Tell this to James Cameron and Steven Spielberg among others.

[Morn 8]

LOL Is that the only point you could retort?

[Guest]

Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Star Wars vs. Star Trek

I love both.

But I must admit, that in my opinion, Star Trek is superior in the fact that since it is a series on TV, it has much more time to develop there characters.

Example 1: Captain Picard (ST: TNG) In the first season he starts off as somewhat of a jerk. He didn’t like kids; he acted like a real hard ass. As the series went on Patrick Stewart had time to explore how experiences can change a person, and a character. He really evolved. Experiences such as being abducted by the Borg, losing his brother and nephew, love, and a few creators that could of destroyed the universe. But the key here is time (seven seasons of wonderful writing, acting and directing).

Example 2: The Doctor (ST: Voyeger). Also a character that with time we see evolve into something more than we started with. His exploration of humanity, and his characters growth was something I enjoyed until the series end.

Something else that Star Trek has that SW doesn’t is input. I’m talking of all the hundreds of writers and directors that contributed with wonderful stories that let us, the viewers, experiment. The ST universe grows with every year. TV is a format that lets us explore this, universe with ease.

SW is great, don’t get me wrong, but it’s one big story, with many characters. ST is many small stories in one large universe.

I love the development of Anikan Skywalker-Darth Vader, and Obi-Wan. Hats off to Mr. Lucas.

But it’s ST for me.

~Lord Gibson, who loves also Harry Potter character development. Oh and I’m still a CoS virgin.

[Lord Gibson 0]

That's me.

Forgive the misspelling. I can’t edit, since I wasn’t logged on.

~Lord Gibson, who loves also Harry Potter character development. Oh and I’m still a CoS virgin.

[King Mark 3,631]

Star Trek is better than Star Wars because...

1. Star Trek relys on acting, and character development.

2. Star Trek uses special effects to compliment the movie, rather than special effects as the focal point of the film.

3. Star Trek is about people.

Both cover a large arc of time.

Star Trek is better because of Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, and Captain Janeway.

Star Trek is better because of Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Cmdr. Riker, Troi, Work, Data, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Guinen, Wesley, Jake, Kira, Odo, Jadzia, Ezri, Garak, Dr. Bashir, Chief Obrian, Kiko, Dukat, Chakota, Tom Paris, Tuvok, Harry Kim, The Doctor, Belana, Nelix, and Seven of Nine.

Star Trek is better because of villians like the Klingons, the Romulans, Cardasians, the Jem Hadar, the Founders, the Borg.

That's only your opinion.I actually liked the characters in the competing Lost in space series better(including the Robot)

And Star Wars too has more powerful archetypes,hence it's more universal appeal.

K.M.who has no clue to what most of these do.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Is that the only point you could retort?

Wasn't a retort just making a correction.

Plus Jerry Bruckheimer is given budgets that even Lucas could not muster.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1. Star Trek relys on acting' date=' and character development.

[/quote']

Ummm Star Trek has som of the WORST actin on record. The acting of William Shatner alone is so horrible it requires new words to be invented to describe its badness.

2. Star Trek uses special effects to compliment the movie, rather than special effects as the focal point of the film.

That is because ST's Special Effects generally suck. They do not have the effects budget Lucas has. Otherwise they would "CG assault" you just like Lucas does now.
3. Star Trek is about people. 
SW is WAY more about people than ST. Hell the people in Star Trek BARELY act like real people.
As Morn ask, Have you seen Star Trek.  William Shatner gets a very bad rap here.  He is Captain Kirk.  He [b]is[/b] one of the strongest figures in television history.  If I had to go to battle with any one character from Star Wars or Star Trek, it would be Kirk.  He is heroic, humorous, adventurous, and sometimes hammy.  But he is also loyal, kind, determined, and unfailing.
Star Treks effects are the best tv has ever seen.  Star Wars could only hope to have a space battle as good as those in the last 3 years of DS9.  And finally William, your last point to counter mine is completely wrong.  Star Trek is about people, its about humanity.  Of all the sci-fi series out there this one long arc of now 5 series still shows the optimism that man is capapble of achieving so much more than he is now, and in those shows, man is always striving to better himself.   To believe in the inherent goodness of man is a great idea.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Shuks, Joe, you've gone and made me cry...

Stefancos- who agrees with Ed Al Joe 100%

[Coheteboy 0]

Although I find this debate completely immature and pointless, as each party will never come to an agreement over which one is better. But well... here goes:

In defense of Star Wars... (because I'm immature as well)

-No matter how disappointing TPM and AOTC are, it wasn't as bad as Generations.

-Phasers vs. Lightsabers. Nuff said. (choose the phallic one)

-Space battles. The Borg ship vs. the Federation in First Contact was pretty darn cool, but it also had a Millenium Falcon in the scene.

-No matter how disappointing TPM and AOTC are, they also aren't as horrid as ST: The Motion Picture. Everyone in that movie is wearing pajamas!

-Star Wars is pure imagination from ships to weapons to costumes. Star Trek has too may aliens that look exactly like humans but with some deformalities. That's just lame and lazy. (though Star Wars is kinda getting like that too sadly)

-Star Trek may have 7 of 9, but Star Wars has Natalie Portman.

-Darth Vader! C'mon! There's no competition there! Although Palpatine went out with the Borg Queen once... I think she was the one that got dumped.

-As someone mentioned before (and this being a JW board), the score for Star Wars is beaten by no other sci-fi score... except maybe Space Camp (haha).

-Sure the captains are cool but there aren't any Muppets on Star Trek!

-Star Trek has Whoopie Goldberg... that's a big no no.

Ok I'm sure there's tons more but I'll let you guys work on those. I'd have to agree though... some of the acting in the prequels are just awful. But overall, I like the continous STory of Star Wars and I care more about that then some border dispute in the Neutral Zone or the trouble with tribbles.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Trek is better than Star Wars because...

1. Star Trek relys on acting, and character development.

2. Star Trek uses special effects to compliment the movie, rather than special effects as the focal point of the film.

3. Star Trek is about people.

Both cover a large arc of time.

Star Trek is better because of Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, and Captain Janeway.

Star Trek is better because of Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Cmdr. Riker, Troi, Work, Data, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Guinen, Wesley, Jake, Kira, Odo, Jadzia, Ezri, Garak, Dr. Bashir, Chief Obrian, Kiko, Dukat, Chakota, Tom Paris, Tuvok, Harry Kim, The Doctor, Belana, Nelix, and Seven of Nine.

Star Trek is better because of villians like the Klingons, the Romulans, Cardasians, the Jem Hadar, the Founders, the Borg.

That's only your opinion.I actually liked the characters in the competing Lost in space series better(including the Robot)

And Star Wars too has more powerful archetypes,hence it's more universal appeal.

K.M.who has no clue to what most of these do.

The first 3 points are undeniable facts KM.

They are simply undebatable. Whether those three things make it better than SW is debatable however.

[Marian Schedenig 8,198]

-Star Trek may have 7 of 9, but Star Wars has Natalie Portman.

Star Trek has Dax.

Marian -

[Morn 8]

Although I find this debate completely immature and pointless, as each party will never come to an agreement over which one is better.  But well... here goes:

Immature and pointless means the same as fun.

In defense of Star Wars... (because I'm immature as well)

Glad to see.

-No matter how disappointing TPM and AOTC are, it wasn't as bad as Generations.  

Heh, no, least generations had a consistant and nonchoatic plot.

-Phasers vs. Lightsabers.  Nuff said.  (choose the phallic one)

Ever seen an attacking Klingon?

-Space battles.  The Borg ship vs. the Federation in First Contact was pretty darn cool, but it also had a Millenium Falcon in the scene.

:?

-No matter how disappointing TPM and AOTC are, they also aren't as horrid as ST: The Motion Picture.  Everyone in that movie is wearing pajamas!

Nonsense, that film is very good!

-Star Wars is pure imagination from ships to weapons to costumes.  Star Trek has too may aliens that look exactly like humans but with some deformalities.  That's just lame and lazy.  (though Star Wars is kinda getting like that too sadly)

Have Lucas do better on an sfx budge of 1 million per episode!

-Star Trek may have 7 of 9, but Star Wars has Natalie Portman.

Star Trek has many more hot woman than Star Wars. And 7 of 9 is better than Portman.

-Darth Vader!  C'mon!  There's no competition there!  Although Palpatine went out with the Borg Queen once... I think she was the one that got dumped.

So? Who needs some over the top villian. Anyway, ds9 has dukut and weyon.

-As someone mentioned before (and this being a JW board), the score for Star Wars is beaten by no other sci-fi score... except maybe Space Camp (haha).  

But surely you are not saying Trek scores are bad? Every one except for Trek 3 and 7 is great!

-Sure the captains are cool but there aren't any Muppets on Star Trek!

:?

-Star Trek has Whoopie Goldberg... that's a big no no.  

No, it's a plus!

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

For me, Star Wars is superior to Star Trek in every possible conceivable imaginable way.

I second that. I don't hate Star Trek, I've always liked it, but I don't think it that it is fair for Trek to compare it with Star Wars, and to me there is nothing that Star Trek has ever done that comes close.

Well... in hindsight... I'll hand 1 department to Trek... TV shows. On TV, Star Wars TV specials are pretty lousy, if not horrendous. Movies? No way. The worst Star Wars movie beats the best Star Trek movie hands down. Collectibles? It's close... both have many collectible things and keep fans occupied.

Newsflash. Recently, I showed AOTC SVCD to my mom and uncle, who called it the best Star Wars movie yet (don't bash me... their words, not mine, and my uncle finds all Star Wars movies boring, I've shown all 5 to him myself and this is the 1st one that he seemed like he was actually impressed by, and that includes the original Trilogy).

I like AOTC better now after several viewings. The Tatooine/mother/Tusken Raider scenes make the film and the score to me. I'll be getting the DVD opening day too, (the SVCD copies that my friend gave me are just holding me until then).

-Chris, Shamelessly watching VIP muted...

[Guest]

The first 3 points are undeniable facts KM.

They are simply undebatable.

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

[King Mark 3,631]

The first 3 points are undeniable facts KM.

They are simply undebatable.

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

I agree,this is a ridiculous thread since die hard fans of one or the other will NEVER give in to their P.O.V.

I like Star Trek only for the first 6 movies with the original cast,the rest were

I always found that the series on T.V. never held my attention very long either.

I love Star Wars and it's universe,all 5 Episodes to date,some a bit better than others.

K.M.Who wonders what kind of reaction had Joe posted this at The Force.Net.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

I disagree. Facts are undeniable. That's what makes them facts.

Opinions? Now there is no such thing as an undeniable opinion. They are debatable, but I don't like to debate opinions too often.

[Morn 8]

Facts are to some degree subjective. In other words, they are not the same as how you see them.

[Guest]

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

I disagree. Facts are undeniable. That's what makes them facts.

Yes, but what makes a fact? Ideas have been held true, as fact, in the past, and later been disproven.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

I disagree. Facts are undeniable. That's what makes them facts.

Yes, but what makes a fact? Ideas have been held true, as fact, in the past, and later been disproven.

But if an ideal was disproven, then it never was a fact, was it? That means that it was proven false, and never a proven fact, merely a wrong idea or opinion.

Although, occasionally, sometimes facts can be allegedly disporoven, and then reproven again, disproving the notion that they were false! (Uh, oh... I'm confusing Morn... ) .

The essential thing is... ideas, opinions, and facts are entirely different things. Opinions are different from person to person and are completely subjective from person to person. Some poinions may be right (if based on facts and truth), while some may be wrong (if based on nothing factual or truthful), but there can be, and is absolute truth and absolute untruth to be found. Finding it is the hard part.

And the fact that you call undeniable fact an opinions, is merely an opinion, not a proven fact (according to that line of logic).

Now, all of this aside, what we usually discuss here on this board are opinions based in personal tastes of the posters. They are completely pointless to get angry about because it's like some people like chocolate better than vanilla (and vice versa), or some like bombast better than quiet underscore (and vice versa)... and nobody is right because it depends on the individual person.

But one thing that IS right, factual, and undeniable... is that John Williams rules!

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Facts are to some degree subjective. In other words, they are not the same as how you see them.

In your world, Morn. In your world.

I'm curious... What color is the sky in yours?

Another example...

Morn falls down a hill.

5 people see Morn fall down the hill.

4 of the 5 people that were watching Morn say "Morn fell down the hill", while the remaining one says, "Morn did not fall down the hill".

The 1 person who saw Morn fall down the hill and denied that Morn fell down the hill would be wrong, while the other 4 would be right.

Of course, Morn likely will get up, dust himself off, walk back to the top of the hill and swear that he did not fall down it just to disagree with what everybody else says and dispute known facts. :roll:

FIGHT THE POWER MORN!!!!! LOL

[Rogue_Leader 2]

This debate will never be resolved.

BTW Crusher what the hell is that avatar supposed to be??? :?

[Morn 8]

But if an ideal was disproven, then it never was a fact, was it? That means that it was proven false, and never a proven fact, merely a wrong idea or opinion.

This is just symantics.

fact Pronunciation Key (fkt)

n.

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

There you see, the meaning of fact is closer to the meaning of theory.

As it does not depend on reality, but rather what people know of reality.

Although, occasionally, sometimes facts can be allegedly disporoven, and then reproven again, disproving the notion that they were false! (Uh, oh... I'm confusing Morn... ) .

:roll:

The essential thing is... ideas, opinions, and facts are entirely different things. Opinions are different from person to person and are completely subjective from person to person. Some poinions  may be right (if based on facts and truth), while some may be wrong (if based on nothing factual or truthful), but there can be, and is absolute truth and absolute untruth to be found. Finding it is the hard part.

Ahh, but truth and fact does not mean reality, rather it means a logical way of looking at reality. There by truth and facts can be false rather than not being truth or facts. The only difference between opinions, ideas and facts is that facts involve using the scientific method etc. There by, facts and truth is subjective as it depends on what evidense someone has seen or by what logic they are going by. And btw, absolute truth is an absurd name for reality!

And the fact that you call undeniable fact an opinions, is merely an opinion, not a proven fact (according to that line of logic).

Nothing is proven with absolute certainity anyway, only god can know reality procisely and considering I don't believe in him. A proven fact is not reality, it's just when we are very sure we know what reality is.

Now, all of this aside, what we usually discuss here on this board are opinions based in personal tastes of the posters. They are completely pointless to get angry about because it's like some people like chocolate better than vanilla (and vice versa), or some like bombast better than quiet underscore (and vice versa)... and nobody is right because it depends on the individual person.

Yes, however there is both an objective and subjective side to art.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The first 3 points are undeniable facts KM.

They are simply undebatable.

There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, it's only your opinion.

You are completely wrong, those are three principles that all Star Trek shows are based. NOT OPINION, just the way it is.

[Morn 8]

Heh, that's true though, at least on a philosophical level, seen the matrix? The only undeniable fact is my own existance.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

This debate will never be resolved.

Personal tastes mean that some people will like Star Wars better, some will like Star Trek better, and some will like both. It is pointless to debate. For me, it's Star Wars, hands down, no contest. Others will disagree. Great.

BTW Crusher what the hell is that avatar supposed to be???  :?

It's a baby turtle, 1 of 7 that just hatched. I own too many now, around 50 young-adult to adult turtles in addition to those. I have to find willing people to take some.

[Ross 1]

Heh, that's true though, at least on a philosophical level, seen the matrix?   The only undeniable fact is my own existance.  

Hey, Morn, you into philosophy?

-ROSS, who, having spent the last four years in High School, thought he was alone in that matter.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Morn fails to see how pointless and futile his argument is.

Morn... since you do not believe in absolutes, you fully and completely disqualify yourself from every single debate that you have ever entered in your entire life.

Let me say that again just in case it flew over your head (which is entirely possible). If you don't believe in absolute answers, then you cannot argue absolutely for your point of view, because you don't believe that it even exists, which makes your position futile to defend and pointless to discuss. :roll:

If you admit in absolutes, then we can discuss the matter again. Until then...

End of discussion.

Next?

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Heh, that's true though, at least on a philosophical level, seen the matrix?   The only undeniable fact is my own existance.  

Hey, Morn, you into philosophy?

-ROSS, who, having spent the last four years in High School, thought he was alone in that matter.

Morn needs to Get Out Of The Matrix. I'd send him a link that could help him, but he'd have to pay money (for a videotape), something that he is apparently incapable of.

-Chris, Who's return to the MB lasted less than 1 day before he started debating Morn again... :roll:

[Morn 8]

Let me say that again just in case it flew over your head (which is entirely possible). If you don't believe in absolute answers, then you cannot argue absolutely for your point of view, because you don't believe that it even exists, which makes your position futile to defend and pointless to discuss.  :roll:

Ha, what I said obviously went over your head. What I said is that a fact is different to reality, not that there is no reality (although there might not be, but I doubt it ). In other words, I said that we as humans have no way of knowing absolute truth because we are not god, we can only makes theories about it which might be true or false. Also, a theory that is proven doesn't stop it from being a theory.

Hey, Morn, you into philosophy?

Some what.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Ha, what I said obviously went over your head.

Highly improbable.

What I said is that a fact is different to reality, not that there is no reality (although there might not be, but I doubt it   ).

Holy smokes... at least you can admit that ther can be facts... (whew! :wow: at least there is a sign of intelligence, LOL)... but facts being different from reality?

In other words, I said that we as humans have no way of knowing absolute truth because we are not god, we can only makes theories about it which might be true or false.

I agree.

Also, a theory that is proven doesn't stop it from being a theory.

I diasgree. A theory that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is no longer theory, but rather a fact.

Now, although people can read the evidences and facts completely differently (and come up with wildly different theories from those same facts), there is only one truth. The problem for most is finding that truth, which does exist.

[Morn 8]

Ha' date=' what I said obviously went over your head. [/quote']

Highly improbable.

What I said is that a fact is different to reality' date=' not that there is no reality (although there might not be, but I doubt it ). [/quote']

Holy smokes... at least you can admit that ther can be facts... (whew! :wow: at least there is a sign of intelligence, LOL)... but facts being different from reality?

This is merely symantics. And I provided dictionary support, all you've done is insult. Yet you call me a dishonest debater? I am sick of you ignoring points I make.

In other words, I said that we as humans have no way of knowing absolute truth because we are not god, we can only makes theories about it which might be true or false.

I agree.

Also, a theory that is proven doesn't stop it from being a theory.

I diasgree. A theory that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is no longer theory, but rather a fact.

No.

the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Now, you are assuming theory means the 6th meaning, in science, it means the first. You see, a theory is really just a model of reality, if it's proved or not it doesn't matter. Gravity for example is still called the theory of gravity.

Now, although people can read the evidences and facts completely differently (and come up with wildly different theories from those same facts), there is only one truth. The problem for most is finding that truth, which does exist.

In philosophy, truth doesn't mean that at all, truth means what someone believes to be reality so in other words it's a subjective thing.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

This is merely symantics. And I provided dictionary support, all you've done is insult. Yet you call me a dishonest debater? I am sick of you ignoring points I make.

You provided dictionary support? You, of all people? Morn???

Waitaminute... shouldn't Morn question the dictionary? After all... we cannot truly believe in anything 100% and absolutely, can we? Does that make the dictionary a possible figment of somebody's imagination, it may be wrong, and therefore, unreliable? Well, according to your theory of reality... that is.

And just because I throw in a sarcastic barb or two within my points and counterpoints, doesn't make it dishonest. I just find your points so laughable most of the time, that I can't help it, and wonder why you even try to make points when you don't even fully believe in the point that you are trying to make.

No.

the·o·ry   Pronunciation Key  (th-r, thîr)

n. pl. the·o·ries  

1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.  

2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.  

3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.  

4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.  

5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.  

6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Now, you are assuming theory means the 6th meaning, in science, it means the first. You see, a theory is really just a model of reality, if it's proved or not it doesn't matter.

Um... from what I'm reading there, the Dictionary proves my point, not yours. :roll:

Gravity for example is still called the theory of gravity.

As far as I've known, gravity is a law of science. For instance, jump off a tall building and test it.

In philosophy, truth doesn't mean that at all, truth means what someone believes to be reality so in other words it's a subjective thing.  

Get out of the matrix, Morn. :roll: