Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 76736788" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Verify what exactly.</p><p> OK so therefore all empirical science is doing is describing one aspect of reality and cannot claim reality is physical.</p><p></p><p> You said <span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>"the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations". </em></span></p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p> 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. .</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76736788, member: 342064"] Verify what exactly. OK so therefore all empirical science is doing is describing one aspect of reality and cannot claim reality is physical. You said [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]"the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations". [/I][/COLOR] 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. 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 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom