Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well I didn't see any evidence that they DID have steel reinforcements, but anyway there is evidence that Noah may have had iron, so could have used iron reinforcements, or gopher wood may have had certain properties that modern trees do not have and therefore may not have needed any reinforcements. Or the pitch that he covered the ark with may have acted as reinforcement.
Irrespective of what you call magic either illusion or deception, neither is what really happened, with miracles what you see is what really happened.
The same reason they are not salty now. See Why is the ocean salty?
But the sun IS there, it was created BEFORE day 1, Genesis 1:1. The conjunctive phrase "heavens and earth" is the Hebrew way of saying the entire physical universe. So the sun was already created before day/age 1.
See above the sun already existed.
No, I said animals are not MORAL beings, you misread my post. There is no evidence animals have a moral conscience. A chimp will kill and eat baby chimps and never get punished by the other chimps or show any evidence of feeling guilty about it.
I already showed you earlier in this thread where both Jesus and Paul stated or behaved as if the ceremonial laws and civil laws no longer apply to Christians in the New Covenant. So I am not going to repost those verses again.
Already did. Not going to rehash those again. And I know that since you don't believe in the ENTIRE Canon of God, you will not accept it.
See above.
Of course science proved smoking was bad. It was the only thing that could have proved it was bad. Here is evidence from the the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that shows the scientific medical tests and studies proved that smoking was bad. They did tests on lung cells and seen how smoking caused pulmonary ciliastasis. They also did tests on animals which supported their findings. It was then up to people to accept the information or not. But peoples views alone could not prove smoking was bad.
o why do they say narcotics is illegal.
That doesnt make sense. How can the people in charge have both objective and subjective moral positions at the same time. I suggest that the only person who had an objective position was Wilberforce as he was saying that slavery was bad no matter and despite the opinions of those in charge. Those in charge had the subjective view becuase they ended up giving in to what Wilberforce was saying and changing their view. Only subjectivists will change their view. If those in charge had objective moral views then they would not have changed their view. They would have stuck to their position in saying slavery is good.
If you believe you have an objective moral position you do not change. Like you said objective morality means you keep the same moral position and dont change. The only person that kept their moral position and did not change was William Wilberforce who said slavery is wrong and is always wrong no matter what a persons personal view about slavery is.
My point was is "definitely wrong" is an absolute statement. Does not an absolute statement require some support other than personal opinion. If your moral position is subjective then using absolute statements is a bit of a contradiction especially without support.
Why not, isnt scientific evidence that a certain act is harmful always going to stand no matter what moral position someone takes or what view the individual thinks harm is. The scientific version of what harm is trumps them all becuase it is proven by science. The same science can prove that the persons version of what harm is is wrong. Science can objectively say no that version of harm is not really a harm simply becuase it is science.
Actually it was an argument. You said I was committing a logical fallacy which can only be used in an argument ie' you said,
yes it does becuase for the act to be objectively wrong it has to stand independent of human opinion. Science can show that any moral based personal view that harms peoples wellbeing is wrong based on research into what that moral act does to people. Moral acts can only apply to humans and we know from science that the effects of those moral acts do damage to the person doing the asct, the victim and the greater society. This threatens peoples and societies very survival and is an evolutionary and scientific fact which is independently proven.
No becuase objectivity has to be independent of human opinion. Whatever that persons personal view about their moral system is is not objective but it is subjective. So when science shows that rape and murder are objectively wrong becuase it causes harm to a human the science will trumps any personal opinion and show that depsite the person thinking it right it is wrong and will be wrong no matter what.
I meant becuase the moral stands indpendent of human opinion and view it stands in all situations. If heat is objectively true to boil water then it stands and remains the same despite personal opinion and view that says ice or staring at water makes it boil. It is the same for a moral absolute.
What you continue to fail to do is read the support I posted which will also show how scientifically showing that certain acts are morally wrong no matter what the individual decides independently shows the act harms others.
Now your injecting meaning into it that is not there.
under that logic the definition would also have to state that morality is subjective. To use implications as evidence is not verification. As I said you could easily imply that the meaning was for a particular moral system only by the words that say "a particular system" meaning just one system of conduct.
I have based this on a scientifically verified survey. It is not an appeal to authority but rather using the authority of the science behind the survey to substanciate what I say. An appeal to authority would be just that an appeal to a person/s reputation/position alone without any scientific verification. An appeal to popularity alone just based on unqualified opinion would support your claim but these opinions are qualified in that they are from the sector that deals directly with ethics and morality. Afterall if we want an opinion on cars we go to a car mechanic. If we get the majority of mechanics saying similar things we can trust that this will be the right advice or claim. We do this everyday with quotes ect and is a valid way of authenticating something.
Well I have already shown that the one example you used was wrong, lets see if I can do it with the others. he point is other examples are going to be similar variations of the same example.
I am not denyiong that. I am saying his subjective position is unreal. We could say a person does not care or show empathy towards others and therefore his subjective moral position does not consider what science says about harm. But his moral position is also invalid because he is a pychopath as psychopaths are incapable of determining right from wrong in not having a conscience. You have to be realistic about your examples. Even if we accepted this scenario it can be proven from reason and logic that a person who kills for a job will do other things similar and will suffer themselves from their own behavior. In otherwords their own moral position becomes hyocritical becuase it does not do what they claim it does.
But it does expose the persons credibility about their own moral system if what they say is right keeps getting shown to be wrong based on their own criteria for what is right and wrong. That is good evidence to show that their moral system is wrong without even appealing to the science.
They didn't have iron back then either; and todays pressure treated wood is better than anything natural that could have been used back then
The link explains why the ocean is salty, it doesn’t explain how a once salty lake would lose its salt
No; the bible is very clear; the light that rules the day, (Sun) and the light that rules the night (moon) was created on the 3rd day
Smoking was proven bad 30-40 years prior to the lawsuit. If the lawsuit was about the harmful effects of smoking, the lawsuit would have been introduced back in the 30’s and 40’s when the harmful effects was proven.
They don’t! All moral positions are subjective, objective morality doesn’t exist; but people act as if it exist. When people think of moral issues, they don’t think of objective or subjective, they think of right and wrong and they think their position is right. Both Wilberforce and the law makers of the time thought their positions were equally right; Wilberforce and others were able to prove their position right thus the law makers changed their position on the issue.
Most reasonable people are willing to change their opinions on an issue when proven wrong. I’’m sure Wilberforce would have changed his mind on the issue if he were proven wrong. He was just on the right side of the moral argument this time.
I have shown that the example was wrong independent of my view. Science showed that his actions of killing would cause his own and others well being to suffer. That science came from psychology, human behavior science and the laws of cause and effect which tell us certain truths about what happens when we act in certain ways. Killing has a ripple effect on the life of the killer and on the victim, their family and society which produces a range of negative outcomes. This has been scientifically verified. Remember objectivity has to be independent of me or any human and the science is independent.
I have already done this and its is done below again as stated from MR Harris's article which you should have read when i posted it earlier.
I have already done that. You need to read this link and then address what it says. It answers all your objections.
There was a lot of disputing the finding and for some time the cigarette companies were blaming other causes such as polution from cars and manufactoring. It was not until later in 1954 with a build up of evidence and lack of evidence from alternative causes that health authorities throughout the world announced without any reservation that smoking was the lone cause of lung cancer.
If they act like they exists then maybe they exist. I do not know why people are so scared of objective morality. I tend to think it is a more secure and comfortable way to exist. It means we know what is best and therefore are more assured of everyone being on the same page for certain best moral positions that will guarentee best outcomes. Otherwise with subjective morality we are continually undermining what is the best way to live because whenever we can find that someone will come along and challenge it.
But under subjective morality no one is more right and there is no way to absolutely determine who is more right so it is a fruitless argument to have. There can only be different or likes and dislikes like how people like or dislike icecream.
But that doesnt fit with subjective morality. No one can be proven wrong becuase there is no way to tell who is really right or wrong. It is only through objective morality that we can truly measure what is right and wrong for morality. We can say that there are varying levels of rightness and wrongness which can be discovered and therefore there is an ultimate best that can be discovered as well along the scale of varying right and wrong.
