Truth...subjective or objective?

[2timothy316]

There are those that say, "This is my truth". What is truth? Does it even exist and how can you show evidence of 'your truth'? Is there any truth that everyone can agree on?

[POI]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

[2timothy316]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example. I'll except even a magical example if I can watch it happen.

[POI]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

[2timothy316]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

Autogenesis. Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to know. You're the expert right?

[POI]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

Autogenesis. Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to know. You're the expert right?

I find your responses curious. Let's recap... (unanswered)...

1. Let's say you are RIGHT. Out of the countless god claims out there, what propelled you to land upon the Christian God?
2. Does 'science' make the paraphrased statement that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed'? If so, then "ex nihilio" may not be a thing to consider, right?
3. Do you agree that chemistry acts in nature (upon ex materia), without conscience intent?

[TRANSPONDER]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

Autogenesis. Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to know. You're the expert right?

I find your responses curious. Let's recap... (unanswered)...

1. Let's say you are RIGHT. Out of the countless god claims out there, what propelled you to land upon the Christian God?
2. Does 'science' make the paraphrased statement that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed'? If so, then "ex nihilio" may not be a thing to consider, right?
3. Do you agree that chemistry acts in nature (upon ex materia), without conscience intent?

The 'which god?' question is a subsequent one. Of course the Believers assume there is only One god -claim in the table, but at least establishing an intelligent creator of Life would make the atheists all theists if not Christians. This is fact happened when Anthony Flew was bamboozled by Behe into accepting I/C. A lesson to atheists to take credible arguments on board but wait for the Other side before taking the leap of Faith.


https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1ec7aae0-d ... 5824495f16


But the main point is the science claim - conservation of matter/mass "The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions."

But it is wrongheaded as used by Bible apologists. This is fine in normal conditions on earth. Just as up is up and not down. Out there it's a different place. Sure, the laws of physics still obtain, but we can't impose human conventions on physics.

Which in an odd way is what the theist side is doing here. Considering they dismiss science as subjective opinion when it doesn't suit them, they treat 'scientific norms on Earth (Life cannot come from non -life, you can't get something from nothing)' as Holy writ, which to them, it is, when it suits them.

And your third point in the material default, which if the first choice hypothesis - material physics is the first answer even when we don't know what it is (refutes appeal to unknowns). And oddly that is the science norm that is ignored or dismissed by the theists as mere (subjective) human opinion.

It is clear that 'Objective' is God's say so and 'subjective' is anything that doesn't agree with that. Which is why Other gods are not even considered. The wrongheadedness and Dogmatic Bias of Biblegod -faith is utterly clear, as well as how they fiddle it as they like to try to make out that it applies to science, especially in the arguable areas of Cosmic origins and the origin of Life.

[2timothy316]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

Autogenesis. Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to know. You're the expert right?

I find your responses curious. Let's recap... (unanswered)...

1. Let's say you are RIGHT. Out of the countless god claims out there, what propelled you to land upon the Christian God?

These questions go beyond the scope I intended this thread and forum. This would be great question for the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum. I would hope people would answer it honestly.

2. Does 'science' make the paraphrased statement that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed'? If so, then "ex nihilio" may not be a thing to consider, right?

Not sure what this has to do with the first organism having a creator.

3. Do you agree that chemistry acts in nature (upon ex materia), without conscience intent?

Somethings can only come about under certain conditions. Like diamonds can only be made out of carbon that is exposed to a high amount of heat and pressure. There are many new elements made from other elements in nature. This has been observed many times without anyone's intervention or with intervention.

However, When it comes to life, it has never been observed where chemicals, on their own, make a new life. A.K.A. autogenesis.

[TRANSPONDER]

To me because everything on this earth is made by something and we have observed this countless times but have not observed autogenesis even once, because of this evidence, to me biogenesis has the edge over autogenesis. To me the organism made by autegenesis is the magical/mythical organism that no one can find. Which is one reason why autogenesis is hard for me to accept it, because I don't believe in magic.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Even if I were to think like you, in this regard, WHY the God of the Bible? Being we have countless god claims rolling around, seems curious you landed upon THIS one as your conclusion

Is there a third option? Explain.

I already did explain. You just did not address it. See the part in bold above.

I noticed you completely ignored the rest of the response below (as well). Here it is again, for your convenience:

"Science" states (paraphrased) that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If 'autogenesis' is merely the reconstruction of pre-existing "ex materia", and not 'ex nihilio', then it stands to reason autogenesis is quite plausible. We see chemistry in action, upon 'ex materia' without any 'intentional' forces in play, right?

Cool. Then show me an example.

Show an example of what exactly?

Autogenesis. Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to know. You're the expert right?

I find your responses curious. Let's recap... (unanswered)...

1. Let's say you are RIGHT. Out of the countless god claims out there, what propelled you to land upon the Christian God?

These questions go beyond the scope I intended this thread and forum. This would be great question for the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum. I would hope people would answer it honestly.

2. Does 'science' make the paraphrased statement that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed'? If so, then "ex nihilio" may not be a thing to consider, right?

Not sure what this has to do with the first organism having a creator.

3. Do you agree that chemistry acts in nature (upon ex materia), without conscience intent?

Somethings can only come about under certain conditions. Like diamonds can only be made out of carbon that is exposed to a high amount of heat and pressure. There are many new elements made from other elements in nature. This has been observed many times without anyone's intervention or with intervention.

However, When it comes to life, it has never been observed where chemicals, on their own, make a new life. A.K.A. autogenesis.

Yes, but consider that you are only able to explain this because Geology told you. Otherwise Diamonds would have just been accep
eted as There and never mind how, and if anyone asked 'God' would do.

Now the Geological evidence is pretty much dun and dustid that Volcanoes make diamonds. This is not a gap for god. But heavy elements were until it was explained as coming form ancient Novae. Nobody observed this, Nobody was There, but it explains heavy elements so that it is no longer an argument for God, as it once was.

So your beef against Abiogenesis is on a par except that there os nore to prove, or more vigorous denial by the YE lobby than they mustered against heavy Elements. The thing is, that it is only ever an alternative hypothesis to a creator, which makes God NOT the Only Explanation. It is not provable, but is not disprovable either.

Odd thing - and this came out in a debunk of Exodus I watched, the point was made that we can't prove Alexander, so why should there be better proof of Moses? Well there is a decent amount of contemporary evidence (1)The apologists think there is only a single history 400 years later), but there is nothing outside the Bible for Moses and rather all the evidence is against it. So (I know why, just sayin') and I know why, but just a rhetorical question - why does YE creationism - indeed Christian apologetics as a whole - demand Real time, hard evidence for the skeptic case, while 'Jesus did a lot of other things' or worse is made to dismiss all and any problems. Because they regard the Bible account as the default hypothesis and all they need do is deny everything and they win. They think.

Friends; you know this, or you do now. Believers, you know it works like that or you ought to, and it is Faithbased argument, not logical evaluation or really dealing with evidence than objective manner.

Christian apologetics are the most subjective believes there are.

(1) which doesn't stop the apologists dismissing it as 'Hearsay' as one poster dismissed an inscription of Ramesses III or maybe V, I can never remember.

[POI]

These questions go beyond the scope I intended this thread and forum. This would be great question for the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum. I would hope people would answer it honestly.

If your intent was to verify THE truth <versus> "subjective" truth, then why don't you just stick with that alone? Speaking about "autogenesis" is no more or less a 'truth' topic than any other topic one may pose or bring forth. Thus, if you wish to speak about verifying what you stated in the OP (i.e.) "What is truth? Does it even exist and how can you show evidence of 'your truth'? Is there any truth that everyone can agree on?", then I suggest we start over, like here for instance:

htt://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLJczkOU44

**************************

Otherwise, my previous question is no more or less pertinent here than yours. Which way would you like to proceed, by starting anew and addressing points made in the relevant video, or, answer my three unanswered questions? i.e.

1) Out of the countless god claims out there, what propelled you to land upon the Christian God? Can we find truth here, or is this YOUR truth alone?

U: Not sure what this has to do with the first organism having a creator.

POI: 2) If matter always existed, then there would be no such thing as a "creator". Unless your definition of a 'creator' is an agency which merely rearranges ex materia.

Thus, I ask anew, provided we are not merely trying to figure out 'truth' alone:

Is 'science' right, with the statement "matter can neither be created nor destroyed"? In other words, has 'ex materia' always existed, <yes or no>? "Science" says <yes>. Do you disagree? If so, explain how you KNOW? What IS the TRUTH here?

U: Somethings can only come about under certain conditions. Like diamonds can only be made out of carbon that is exposed to a high amount of heat and pressure. There are many new elements made from other elements in nature. This has been observed many times without anyone's intervention or with intervention.

However, When it comes to life, it has never been observed where chemicals, on their own, make a new life. A.K.A. autogenesis.

POI: 3) Something has to be observed before you believe it? If that is the case, please demonstrate an 'ex nihilo' event by your God? Or better yet, please demonstrate your God period? Meaning, is your believed upon God even observable, let alone, your God creating things?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is a funny old one It's like the Bible apologists do not connect forensic investigation (whether medical, archaeological or criminalogical) with coming to conclusions, and insist that 'it must be observed'. But then some have argued that human observation is unreliable. 'Imperfect human perception'. But only (it seems) if it relates to science, and THEN is is supposed to fail even when the scientific method is applied so as to rule out misperception, like thinking that biological 'design' shews forth a god (name your own) when forensic investigation has shown that adaptation is the mechanism.

It is Observation and jumping to conclusions that leads to errors, like the notorious spontaneous creation or (just earlier) Phrenology, or indeed Piltdown man, cold fusion and the chinese fake fossil, all of which were shown wrong by forensic examination.

Theist apologetics has got it back to front. Observation is not what gives the right answer - it is examination of the evidence. Which is exactly why we are beginning to see that we have been misled by the Bible for quite a long time.