You said you would use science to determine right and wrong. Where is the science? It appears that you simply voice your opinion.
The question was not addressed to you. The OP made the assertion that morality can be determined through science but when asked to evaluate certain morals the author of the OP did not use the scientific method to do so. I can only assume then that the OP is pure bunk.
And my comment was addressed to you, so what is your point? In my opinion, your assumption is correct.
Suppose that when I say "A statement X is true" that means that X is a member of the set which we call "the truth", which contains all true statements. Now, imagine that I defined it by saying "The truth is Y", which means that this set "the truth" is some other object Y. If this definition is correct, if it is true, then it must belong in the set of all true statements, which is, of course, "the truth". However, with the addition of this new statement, "the truth" would now be a different object, and therefore could not be Y. Repeat ad infinitum.
How about just plain ole ad nauseum? Have a nice evening JR, and if you go out for a drive, keep it between the lines.
