IMAliyu:

Fair enough.

However I was looking at it from an individual level.

I understand, but the error here is, you are not the only one in the world so the consideration of the actions of others in that world can not and should not be dispensed with, which you have taken cognisance and shapened your view.

And on this china example view, I can not proceed because I prefer to deal only True Realities than fabricated ones.

IMAliyu:

Another thought. We wouldn't really need legislatures, courts, judges, and police if God was enforcing his laws on us, in this world would we?
(Just to clarify laws here mean, does and don'ts, and not physical laws like eg. Electromagnetism)

He has been enforcing it not like the old times but a different type and still much better than any Law Enforcement in the world and it is still been enforced even today and I can show you if you may want a peek at it!

keppler:

Oh! Sammy is here. What is your rebuttal to the statement "Christianity actually makes a sane society"?
I predict you won't refute just like my new friend hellvictor

Nah, I don't need to refute anything.
The statement on its own sounds funny. It's a joke itself.

keppler:

Therefore, I share your last statement (as advised by Dtruthspeaker earlier) that "you are not worth having a conversation"

He and his kind like being as ghosts, floating all over the face of the earth meanwhile, they are earth-men or ground-men and they start as one or represent that they are one.

But when they see that there falls-ground has been broken or shall be broken, they refuse to stand as earth man as they have represented but rather Transform into "ghosts" flee from their ground and completely abandoning it as though it was never their land and quickly scooting away into other places.

Evil spirits are they Truly and not earth-men!

keppler:

Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book
That's the problem, the "ancient book" is being rejected since it is the sole authority. Like the great G. K. Chersterton said in his debate with atheist Anthony Flew (who later got converted) that if archaeological and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible were to be discarded, the very fact that Jesus came (assuming that you don't reject the historicity of Jesus due to atheistic BIAS) who died and resurrected is enough testimony to the reliability of the "ancient book". So I wouldn't allow you to put me in a position of abandoning Jesus' own testimony for your unfair criteria. There is no valid reason for rejecting is except for the atheistic a priori bias

LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty.

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so
That's a fallacy of false analogy and non sequitur. Science is just a tool which can be used by anyone. It is not a worldview like atheism, hence your analogy does not follow

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity
Simple explanation: there is no material thing that has consciousness, hence, the matter in the brain does not produce consciousness (as the brain alone does not have consciousness)
If it were to be, then we can never have absolute truth. In fact, science will not work because there's no way to know that the activities in Newton's brain is the correct one. This implies that we are not responsible for our actions since they are the workings of the reactions of matter in our brain. This discussion will not happen in the first place.

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

What does absolute truth mean?

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up
Of course, i can't be in the world of worldviews without knowing the strengths and weakness of different camps. Abiogenesis - life from non life; which has been put to death by Louis Pasteur, only to be given attention by the Miller-Urey experiment.
And I maintain that whether biological, chemical or cosmic evolution, these are still parts of the naturalistic explanation that MUST exclude God in answering questions of how we came to be here. Even here on NL, folks will rehash statements such as "I know that we are product of some dead stars". This statement has combined the three evolutions (lol) together. Which is why I laugh when atheists try to remove the difficult parts when arguing for naturalistic explanation for all things (Prof Richard Lewontin said "... for we cannot allow a divine foot".

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.

Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds
There are evidence for supernatural and God but the atheistic bias will mostly come in the way. It can't be argued that there was and have been no miraculous events (which is a SPECIAL way god upholds the universe in contrast to the REGULAR way such as laws of nature).
So the statement above clearly demonstrate that matter is not just out there (implying from your rejection of supernatural) but you would not change your mind because of bias which itself is a dogma as against your claim.

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind.

kingxsamz:


Nah, I don't need to refute anything.
The statement on its own sounds funny. It's a joke itself.

Calling it a joke is worse.
That guy is pointless.
budaatum is another noisemaker whose talent is to falsely accuse.

LordReed:


LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty.

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

What does absolute truth mean?

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind.

LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty
This your response assumes that science have answers to all questions. Science is only descriptive and not prescriptive, and cannot prove ALL THINGS. The Christian understands that supernatural creation (and other concepts such as morality, or repeating what has happened in history) are beyond the scope of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and would not think of using as a tool to describe them. Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.
And before I leave this part, I don't want to assume you are equating science to naturalism anyway.

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

I maintain that science is a tool that can be used by anyone to answer questions. And in this case, the tool is used such that it should be consistent with a certain worldview which is Atheism. So your analogy does not follow again because you are talking about fields of knowledge whereas, atheism is a philosophical position while science is a tool that is being used by any philosophical position.

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.
This again is appealing to the emergent properties of matter but from your examples, it is a physical law that atoms emit or absorb light of different wavelengths (which itself is what we see as colours). Also, forest is just a high density of trees; i.e. the plenty trees does not change anything. In fact, that analogy again is non sequitur neurochemical activities to produce consciousness/reasoning is not same as plenty of trees called forest. Hence, emergent properties still follow physical laws while atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows to produce consciousness/reasoning.

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

I never said anything that relates to this
What does absolute truth mean?
What is known to be TRUE at all times

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.
Sorry Prof, you may point out to me what abiogenesis means as what I've learned is what I summarized earlier. Or could it be that since your worldview need abiogenesis, you are ready to dismiss the fact I said it has been put to death
You could point out what it is as I did with your question of absolute truth

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind
Your first statement is obviously a straw man, hence the second is invalid.
You cannot see the intermolecular forces holding atoms together but you know that they exists, though cannot account for the origin of such laws. This is what we refer to as the action of the law giver who put set those running.
Historically, it is a fact that Jesus existed, died and resurrected, with the last action not explainable by natural laws. Coupled with his claims and endorsement of the scriptures before him which clearly talked about God and supernatural, that should suffice. But, atheistic bias would not allow (I guess).

kingxsamz:


Nah, I don't need to refute anything.
The statement on its own sounds funny. It's a joke itself.

Prediction made
Prediction fulfilled
Like Image123 said sometimes ago, you are easy to predict and I noticed that your fellow man has come to support.

But God loves you both if you open your mind

keppler:

Prediction made
Prediction fulfilled
Like Image123 said sometimes ago, you are easy to predict and I noticed that your fellow man has come to support.

But God loves you both if you open your mind

Eyah... Seems like I have been giving you and Image123 sleepless nights. And I only typed "lol" o. Don't worry you'll be fine. At this point, Image123 wakes up at night to go through all the posts I made for a day. Maybe you can do the same. Afterall, you're doing it for the lord.

keppler:


LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty
This your response assumes that science have answers to all questions. Science is only descriptive and not prescriptive, and cannot prove ALL THINGS. The Christian understands that supernatural creation (and other concepts such as morality, or repeating what has happened in history) are beyond the scope of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and would not think of using as a tool to describe them. Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.
And before I leave this part, I don't want to assume you are equating science to naturalism anyway.

Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said.

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

I maintain that science is a tool that can be used by anyone to answer questions. And in this case, the tool is used such that it should be consistent with a certain worldview which is Atheism. So your analogy does not follow again because you are talking about fields of knowledge whereas, atheism is a philosophical position while science is a tool that is being used by any philosophical position.

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.
This again is appealing to the emergent properties of matter but from your examples, it is a physical law that atoms emit or absorb light of different wavelengths (which itself is what we see as colours). Also, forest is just a high density of trees; i.e. the plenty trees does not change anything. In fact, that analogy again is non sequitur neurochemical activities to produce consciousness/reasoning is not same as plenty of trees called forest. Hence, emergent properties still follow physical laws while atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows to produce consciousness/reasoning.

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

I never said anything that relates to this

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.

What does absolute truth mean?
What is known to be TRUE at all times

Give example of an absolute truth.

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.
Sorry Prof, you may point out to me what abiogenesis means as what I've learned is what I summarized earlier. Or could it be that since your worldview need abiogenesis, you are ready to dismiss the fact I said it has been put to death
You could point out what it is as I did with your question of absolute truth

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind
Your first statement is obviously a straw man, hence the second is invalid.
You cannot see the intermolecular forces holding atoms together but you know that they exists, though cannot account for the origin of such laws. This is what we refer to as the action of the law giver who put set those running.
Historically, it is a fact that Jesus existed, died and resurrected, with the last action not explainable by natural laws. Coupled with his claims and endorsement of the scriptures before him which clearly talked about God and supernatural, that should suffice. But, atheistic bias would not allow (I guess).

It's not a strawman because that is exactly what you asking of me. You are pointing to something that can't be explained in nature and saying it has supernatural origins, I should just take your word for it. You cannot give a demonstration of what this supernatural is, you merely point to a gap in knowledge and say there! No sir, I won't take your word for it, maybe we should wait for Jesus to return maybe then we'll get an explanation and proof, yes?

kingxsamz:


Eyah... Seems like I have been giving you and Image123 sleepless nights. And I only typed "lol" o. Don't worry you'll be fine. At this point, Image123 wakes up at night to go through all the posts I made for a day. Maybe you can do the same. Afterall, you're doing it for the lord.

It's because of claims such as this that always bring you out.
When was the last time I make attempt to correct you erroneous claims?
Who quoted who first in this thread?
Even if you are quoted (by me or him) it is to point out an error and make corrections to such error (which you seem to feel that you are so important that one needs to quote you). You on the other hand is not interested in that. You wrote "lol" to a statement and was asked to bring your rebuttal (knowing you can't), then you didn't; fulfilling the predicition

keppler:

It's because of claims such as this that always bring you out.
When was the last time I make attempt to correct you erroneous claims?
Who quoted who first in this thread?
Even if you are quoted (by me or him) it is to point out an error and make corrections to such error (which you seem to feel that you are so important that one needs to quote you). You on the other hand is not interested in that. You wrote "lol" to a statement and was asked to bring your rebuttal (knowing you can't), then you didn't; fulfilling the predicition

Eyah... Seems like I hurt this one.
You can keep crying sha.
If me typing "lol" is what's disturbing your peace today maybe you should take sometime off the internet. And I didn't even quote you o. The person I quoted isn't even crying. You're crying on his behalf and calling your colleague to come and support you.
Predictable my ass. shift.

LordReed:


Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said.

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.

Give example of an absolute truth.

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.

It's not a strawman because that is exactly what you asking of me. You are pointing to something that can't be explained in nature and saying it has supernatural origins, I should just take your word for it. You cannot give a demonstration of what this supernatural is, you merely point to a gap in knowledge and say there! No sir, I won't take your word for it, maybe we should wait for Jesus to return maybe then we'll get an explanation and proof, yes?

Let me point this out first, I have engaged your argument fairly by treating what you say, but you seem to be making a red herring fallacy as seen in most of your response here
Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said
Now this is a red herring as it can easily distract one from the point I raised earlier. So, I'm not falling for it and won't address it

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?
This is part of group of philosophical questions that science can be used to attempt to answer. Anyway, science cannot also answer HOW the universe began because it is a one time event which cannot be repeated, hence cannot be observed and tested - not following the scientific method.
This should not distract your fallacy of false analogy anyway

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

Again, I never said nor implied what you wrote here. I said "...atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows (OBEY) to[b] produce[/b] consciousness/reasoning"

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.
It has been proposed that emergent properties of neural cells produce consciousness, but there is no way to show that it is. In fact, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Matter is known to have new properties when it combines in a way which is usually known by physical laws. I used the absorption and emission of photons of different wavelength earlier; it is repeatable and KNOWN. But here, we are being told that conglomeration of the different parts of the brain (magically) produce consciousness which is not even a property of matter in the first place

Give example of an absolute truth.
A rectangle has two lines of symmetry

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.
I was disappointed when you showed a link that definitely explained what was not different from what I said earlier that abiogenesis talks about LIFE FROM NON LIFE and went on to accuse me of not knowing what it meant. This is just funny
The first line which provided the definition according to your link reads "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth" [All emphasis are mine].
And despite the billions of dollars poured into such research to just help show that God is not needed for origin of life (consistent with an atheistic worldview), this is one of the conclusions made from your adored link (which is supposed to teach me what I do not know about abiogenesis):
[center]There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides[/center]

kingxsamz:


Eyah... Seems like I hurt this one.
You can keep crying sha.
If me typing "lol" is what's disturbing your peace today maybe you should take sometime off the internet. And I didn't even quote you o. The person I quoted isn't even crying. You're crying on his behalf and calling your colleague to come and support you.
Predictable my ass. shift.

My bad for not telling you that it is the same person. I made that known to the person I have been having a good intellectual discussion with - lordreed.

I wouldn't have bothered to reply you but I just needed to make corrections to your assumptions.

Take care Sammy

keppler:

My bad for not telling you that it is the same person. I made that known to the person I have been having a good intellectual discussion with - lordreed.

I wouldn't have bothered to reply you but I just needed to make corrections to your assumptions.

Take care Sammy

Lol, it's not by force to have a conversation with you or your colleague nw.
I don't know what the tears was for in the first place.
Good day abeg.

Dtruthspeaker:


He and his kind like being as ghosts, floating all over the face of the earth meanwhile, they are earth-men or ground-men and they start as one or represent that they are one.

But when they see that there falls-ground has been broken or shall be broken, they refuse to stand as earth man as they have represented but rather Transform into "ghosts" flee from their ground and completely abandoning it as though it was never their land and quickly scooting away into other places.

Evil spirits are they Truly and not earth-men!

You rightly know him. And I once again appreciate your genuine concern earlier. God bless you

keppler:

You rightly know him. And I once again appreciate your genuine concern earlier. God bless you

God Bless You Too!

HellVictorinho:

The need for survival exists for no reason.

You must not believe this or you will cease to survive and will not exist and all my faith in you will be a waste and for nothing

Permission Denied!

budaatum:


You must not believe this or you will cease to survive and will not exist and all my faith in you will be a waste and for nothing

Permission Denied!

Please, let me be myself.

HellVictorinho:


Please, let me be myself.

No one is stopping you from being yourself. Just do not kill yourself please because you are needed alive.

budaatum:


No one is stopping you from being yourself. Just do not kill yourself please because you are needed alive.

Let's see if I will kill myself or not.

HellVictorinho:

Let's see if I will kill myself or not.

Well, I can only hope you wouldn't kill yourself, but to be honest with you, I don't think you have the balls or I would not be having faith in you now would I? Besides, why would you do something as horrible as kill yourself to our dear mother?

If you have no love nor sympathy for yourself, you should at least love our mother, please!

budaatum:


Well, I can only hope you wouldn't kill yourself, but to be honest with you, I don't think you have the balls or I would not be having faith in you now would I? Besides, why would you do something as horrible as kill yourself to our dear mother?

If you have no love nor sympathy for yourself, you should at least love our mother, please!

I am tired of your speech.
Good night!

HellVictorinho:

I am tired of your speech.
Good night!

My regards to our mother.

HellVictorinho:

Calling it a joke is worse.
That guy is pointless.
budaatum is another noisemaker whose talent is to falsely accuse.

I wonder why atheists on here still engage the dude. Budaatum is a clown taking clownism to a whole new level.

Plead:


I wonder why atheists on here still engage the dude. Budaatum is a clown taking clownism to a whole new level.

Atheists, specifically? Lol.

Just tell me you love your mother and I'll live with everything else you think about buda.

Plead:


I wonder why atheists on here still engage the dude. Budaatum is a clown taking clownism to a whole new level.

The worst part is the so-called love by budaatum.

budaatum:


My regards to our mother.

This is unnecessary.

LordReed:


So basically anything he does is good and perfect. There is no appeal to his better nature since even while drowning babies and the unborn, he is perfect. Am I getting you right?

You are not getting me right. Basically, anything He does has to be examined in His standard and attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Give me an example or two of God for proper comparison.

keppler:

Let me point this out first, I have engaged your argument fairly by treating what you say, but you seem to be making a red herring fallacy as seen in most of your response here
Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said
Now this is a red herring as it can easily distract one from the point I raised earlier. So, I'm not falling for it and won't address it

You said (emphasis mine):
Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?
This is part of group of philosophical questions that science can be used to attempt to answer. Anyway, science cannot also answer HOW the universe began because it is a one time event which cannot be repeated, hence cannot be observed and tested - not following the scientific method.
This should not distract your fallacy of false analogy anyway

LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

Again, I never said nor implied what you wrote here. I said "...atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows (OBEY) to[b] produce[/b] consciousness/reasoning"

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.
It has been proposed that emergent properties of neural cells produce consciousness, but there is no way to show that it is. In fact, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Matter is known to have new properties when it combines in a way which is usually known by physical laws. I used the absorption and emission of photons of different wavelength earlier; it is repeatable and KNOWN. But here, we are being told that conglomeration of the different parts of the brain (magically) produce consciousness which is not even a property of matter in the first place

There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain. Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?

Give example of an absolute truth.
A rectangle has two lines of symmetry

Why can't a subjective mind know that such a thing is true?

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.
I was disappointed when you showed a link that definitely explained what was not different from what I said earlier that abiogenesis talks about LIFE FROM NON LIFE and went on to accuse me of not knowing what it meant. This is just funny
The first line which provided the definition according to your link reads "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth" [All emphasis are mine].
And despite the billions of dollars poured into such research to just help show that God is not needed for origin of life (consistent with an atheistic worldview), this is one of the conclusions made from your adored link (which is supposed to teach me what I do not know about abiogenesis):
[center]There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides[/center]

Did you miss this:

Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.

EDITED

HellVictorinho:


This is unnecessary.

Trust me it very is necessary. Because if Plead believes you about buda, Plead might share belief you about our mother too, which will be very improper indeed, so buda must check.

budaatum:


Trust me it very is necessary. Because if Plead believes you about buda, Plead might share belief you about our mother too, which will be very improper indeed, so buda must check.

Plead knows you are wrong.
So,shut up!!!!!

LordReed:


You said (emphasis mine):
Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?



LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.



There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain. Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?



Why can't a subjective mind know that such a thing is true?



Did you miss this:

Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.

EDITED

You are wasting your time debating like this.
You should rather condemn what is condemnable!!!!
Don't try to convince those people!!!!