Johnny: what is a 'spiritual being' ?

[alreadyGone]

Hello Johnny.

 

In another discussion here you posted:

 

"I'm not making a choice between the two. God did give freedom of will and does not have the power to suddenly not have it. God did create spiritual beings and physical beings. That is quite powerful to me. God is love and gave us all choices. If we He created robots with no free choice that is no loving. Lucifer made the choice to go against God and so did a third of the angels. "

 

Wherein you assert that God created 'spiritual beings'.

Tell me please, what precisely is a spiritual being?

 

Is there any objective evidence that any spiritual entity of any kind actually exists, anywhere?

Human spirit, divine spirit, demonic spirit?

 

Thank you for your attention to this question.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Johnny

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny,

 

Quoting again from a different post by you in that same discussion:

 

"I vowed to myself roughly 50 years ago, I will only accept things that made sense because I have sufficient evidence to back it up."

 

So with that in mind..

 

[Johnny]

7 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Wherein you assert that God created 'spiritual beings'.

Tell me please, what precisely is a spiritual being?

You'll have to forgive my delays in replying and not being able to address everyone. Although some may see my life as boring, I like it and have other things to do as you all have other things to do. Not to mention, I have many replies from various people directed at me, which is perfectly fine. The time factor of getting to all of it does play in so don't see it as rudeness on my part. 

 

The "precisely" part may be difficult. Good and bad angels are spiritual beings. One of the root words is wind and breath. It's there but you don't see it. That is not to say that spiritual beings can't come into being seen. 

 

7 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Is there any objective evidence that any spiritual entity of any kind actually exists, anywhere?

Human spirit, divine spirit, demonic spirit?

That's a good question. Not to get redundant, as I brought up before showing that we could not have gotten all this by natural means and it had to be supernatural. So that in itself shows there has to be a supernatural power. Life in all its various forms are examples of a supernatural power and designer behind it. 

 

Does that mean there are other spirit beings or just the one supernatural being that created all this? Or could have had been numerous spiritual beings that created all this? That would come down to what I mentioned already...Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. 

 

Having looked at various ones, I came to the conclusion it is the God of the bible. That has it as God is the creator of all. 

 

I'm being courteous here that you could have done this IN a thread that was ALREADY started that your question could have been brought up in, but you chose to make this a whole separate thread. I'm not going to now go in explaining the foundation again of why I believed this was all done supernaturally nor now get into how I must prove the bible is true because you saw me as some dog that I have to go fetch the ball just because you threw it. You wanted to start a whole new thread with ME as the target. Why?! What is your point? This could have been easily brought up in the threads I'm involved with already and it is underhanded that you come up with this title targeting me. I would NOT have the gall to do that with you specifically starting a thread with questions directed at you. 

 

If you want to continue this then talk to the air from here on out. 

[alreadyGone]

I started this thread to avoid going off-topic in the other.

It's a different discussion.

That's commonly-accepted internet courtesy, nothing more.

 

There's no need to be defensive.

 

 

[alreadyGone]

13 minutes ago, Johnny said:

The "precisely" part may be difficult. Good and bad angels are spiritual beings.

...

 

I don't see this as an answer to the question Johnny.

 

What is the definition of the word "spirit" as a noun in the context of a living entity?

 

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

[TABA]

This topic is locked, at least for now.  We are working on setting up a more organized dialog between our guest Johnny and one of our Ex-Christian members (to be determined).  More to come...

[TABA]

There is not going to be a more formal one-on-one debate between @Johnnyand an Ex-Christian, at least for now.  This topic is now being unlocked.

[Joshpantera]

On 6/30/2022 at 1:31 PM, Johnny said:

That's a good question. Not to get redundant, as I brought up before showing that we could not have gotten all this by natural means and it had to be supernatural. So that in itself shows there has to be a supernatural power. Life in all its various forms are examples of a supernatural power and designer behind it. 

 

No, life in all of its various forms are examples of the definition of natural. And while life is arguably a series of designs, they are designs that are evidenced by a process of trial and error which points to evolution by natural selection. Nature is full of what are essentially, not so well designed, designs. And that's what you will be hard pressed to overcome in debate with something much more experienced than yourself. The highly credentialed PhD's can't overcome this glaring problem, what chance do you figure you have of overcoming it? 

 

I'm serious. This isn't to put you down, it's to clarify the seriousness of the situation. The brightest minds in Christian Apologetic's cannot overcome this problem. Not by thinking, not by prayer, not by anything. And if you wade deeply into the issues you'll drown. 

 

On 6/30/2022 at 1:31 PM, Johnny said:

Does that mean there are other spirit beings or just the one supernatural being that created all this? Or could have had been numerous spiritual beings that created all this? That would come down to what I mentioned already...Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. 

 

Having looked at various ones, I came to the conclusion it is the God of the bible. That has it as God is the creator of all. 

 

First of all, there's no ground for a supernatural creation over a natural one in the first place. You can't establish that as fact. Which means that you have no choice but to logic leap beyond an unestablished fact in order to make claims that don't follow from any previously established fact, because you skipped the step of first establishing the fact. 

 

Then you try stacking another baseless assumption on top of your first baseless assumption. 

 

The assumption that having looked at various gods, you come to the conclusion that only the god of the judeo-christian bible is true. Had you any idea of what the bible is, and what it contains, this position becomes increasingly untenable. It starts out polytheistic. Genesis is about a pantheon of gods, called the "Elohim," translated as "us," "we," etc., etc. 

 

It's not different than Greek Mythology or anything similar. It's polytheistic, Jewish mythology. Which was later politicized into a monotheistic setting that wasn't there from the outset. And which is obviously man made for specific political reasons. 

 

 

You are on extremely weak ground trying to argue in the direction that you've illustrated for us. It's no wonder you aren't willing to engage serious debate.

 

Not one thing you've offered so far can be taken seriously by knowledgeable people. You have no idea who and what you're trying to go up against. Every one of us here on staff, and a good majority of our membership, have basically lapped you around the track so many times that you don't have a chance, with anyone here. 

 

Now if you do realize that, and that's why you've backed down from debate, then I'll go ahead and pump the brakes and not give you such a hard time. If you just want relaxed discussion where we exchange ideas loosely, then ok. I know that I'd be happy to let you know what I've found over the last 30 years of being outside of my childhood church and faith. I will try and expand and qualify my opinions in a way that you may be able to understand. In a civil manor. 

 

But one thing is clear, you have no higher ground over me or anyone else here from the non-believer camp. So, drop the bluffs and take a humble attitude if learning from us about our perspectives is what brings you here. 

 

Good day! 

 

[Johnny]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

No, life in all of its various forms are examples of the definition of natural.

The law of biogenesis is that life couldn't come about on its own. Sure life is natural, no surprise there, but going by the context that I wrote..."Life in all its various forms are examples of a supernatural power and designer behind it." means it did't come about naturally. 

Seriously, I need to be that clear with you?! You couldn't even get a hint of what I meant?!

 

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Nature is full of what are essentially, not so well designed, designs.

Can you give one? Our bodies in their fallen state are not what they meant to me but for most, they still work. It's kind of why you are here. If I were to assume you got here by the regular means, sexual reproduction, would you like to explain how human sexual reproduction evolved? If it's a bad design, then say how it came about on its own and nature did it. Oh, do that after you show life came about on its own.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

First of all, there's no ground for a supernatural creation over a natural one in the first place.

How can I verify you are wrong? Having dealt with others in this forum. I get the 1LT was not violated because it was all there already. Nothing was created. No explanation how it was there, it was just there. When I bring up then how did that get around the 2LT I'm told it wasn't in effect then. How can I argue with science fiction? Science fiction is not repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. It's just made up. Since you chose the natural approach, it MUST fit with nature. The 2LT not being in effect naturally, is just science fiction. Just having something there with NO explanation how is science fiction. You can argue with that until you're blue in the face, but it's NOT science.

 

[alreadyGone]

So @Johnny  please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

 

Are you not offering a definition of a spirit as a supernatural form of life?

 

Which is to say, you define a spirit by what it isn't (i.e. a mortal being living a temporal existence).

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

The law of biogenesis is that life couldn't come about on its own.

 

Johnny,

 

When I Google 'Law of Biogenesis' I can't find any links to mainstream scientific sites.

 

So, this YouTube video seems appropriate.

 

 

This 'Law' comes from Creation 'Science' doesn't it?

 

And once again we cannot agree on what constitutes proper science.

[walterpthefirst]

Science fiction is not repeatable, observable, and falsifiable.

 

 

Miracles aren't repeatable and falsifiable, either.

 

Those that took place before humans were around aren't observable either.

 

Hence Hebrews  11 :  1 - 3.

 

Miracles unseen by human eyes (like the creation) are to be accepted only by faith.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

How can I argue with science fiction?

 

 

You can't, Johnny.  

 

But when science makes predictions that are later confirmed by evidence, this demonstrates that it is not science fiction.

 

Like Carl Sagan predicting the existence of exoplanets in the 70's and 80's without the technology to be able to see them.

 

Now we have evidence of over 5,000 of them and from these we infer the existence of billions of them in our galaxy.

 

Confirmed predictions meet all of the criteria you mentioned; repeatability, observability and falsifiability.

 

Different science teams can use different telescopes to repeat the observations of the same exoplanets, obtaining the same data sets.

 

And when someone makes an observation that cannot be repeated, the existence of a proposed exoplanet is falsified.

 

As happened with Peter van de Kamp's giant planets orbiting Barnard's star.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_de_Kamp  

 

Falsified!

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

In case Johnny accuses me of a strawman argument involving exoplanets and not tackling the issue of creation, my given example is merely meant to show that confirmed predictions meet all of the criteria he mentioned.

 

If he would like me to describe the confirmed predictions of the LCDM (which incorporates Big Bang theory) I will gladly do so.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Astreja]

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

The law of biogenesis is that life couldn't come about on its own.

 

What "law of biogenesis"?  I know of no such scientific law.

 

Quote

The 2LT not being in effect naturally, is just science fiction.

 

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no additional energy inputs.  The Earth is not a closed system, and we're constantly getting energy from that big shiny thermonuclear thingamajig up there in the sky 152 million kilometres away.

 

You can't *poof* your god into the equation by arbitrarily labelling something "science fiction" if you don't like its implications.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

What "law of biogenesis"?  I know of no such scientific law.

 

 

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no additional energy inputs.  The Earth is not a closed system, and we're constantly getting energy from that big shiny thermonuclear thingamajig up there in the sky 152 million kilometres away.

 

You can't *poof* your god into the equation by arbitrarily labelling something "science fiction" if you don't like its implications.

 

That's right, Astreja.

 

And there are only three types of thermodynamic system; isolated, closed and open.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system

 

And the common feature of all three types is a boundary.  But where is the boundary of our universe?  What is sometimes known as the 'edge' of the universe is only a visual horizon beyond which we cannot see.  Nothing more.

 

The system is delimited by walls or boundaries, either actual or notional, across which conserved (such as matter and energy) or unconserved (such as entropy) quantities can pass into and out of the system. The space outside the thermodynamic system is known as the surroundings, a reservoir, or the environment. The properties of the walls determine what transfers can occur. A wall that allows transfer of a quantity is said to be permeable to it, and a thermodynamic system is classified by the permeabilities of its several walls. A transfer between system and surroundings can arise by contact, such as conduction of heat, or by long-range forces such as an electric field in the surroundings.

 

Since nobody knows what kind of boundary the universe has (if any) then it is impossible to say if there is a transfer across this boundary.  As such it is impossible to say with any certainty whether we live in an isolated, closed or open thermodynamic system.  And if we don't know what type of system the universe is, then it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful about the entropy of the universe.

 

Creationists get around this inconvenience by 'cheating' and treating the visual horizon of the universe as a hard boundary.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[Johnny]

17 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Are you not offering a definition of a spirit as a supernatural form of life?

 

Spirit is used in many ways. You can look that up. If you don't want to then that is not on me. 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny,

 

It seems you are avoiding the question.

I didn't ask how others use the word.

 

I asked:

What is the definition of the word "spirit" as a noun in the context of a living entity?

 

What do YOU mean when you use this word?

You have made reference to something ('a spiritual being' ) as the definite article.

If you cannot define it then your words are nonsense and lacking honesty.

 

???

 

In the previous thread you posted:

"I vowed to myself roughly 50 years ago, I will only accept things that made sense because I have sufficient evidence to back it up."

 

Johnny,

Where is there evidence that any 'spiritual being' of any kind actually exists?

 

 

 

 

[Johnny]

12 hours ago, Astreja said:

What "law of biogenesis"?  I know of no such scientific law.

Hardheads want to ignore the Law of Biogenesis merely because it shows them to be wrong, not because it is proven wrong. Science fiction is your foundation, NOT science. You can't even do a decent job of pretending to be rational because you're irrational. You're not even rational enough to see how irrational you are. 

 

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God.... There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility... that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." George Wald

 

---Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. 

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

 

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

---"In order to be scientific law, a statement must describe some aspect of the universe and be based on repeated experimental evidence. Scientific laws may be stated in words, but many are expressed as mathematical equations."--

ALL "repeated experimental evidence" proves the law of biogenesis but hardheads will NOT accept that because they are spoiled brats wanting their way no matter how counterintuitive it is to reality.

Simpletons will ignore science as they pretend to follow it. The creation of the universe and life can only come from God.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5gUAjKqt8&t=2s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-FnTToFEuI&t=19s

 

The odds are NOT there.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9gawzZLsk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddaqSutt5aw&t=7s

[Johnny]

12 hours ago, Astreja said:

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no additional energy inputs.  The Earth is not a closed system, and we're constantly getting energy from that big shiny thermonuclear thingamajig up there in the sky 152 million kilometres away.

Have you ever had reading comprehension? Is it too much for you to see the context of what I was writing on was about the creation of the universe? Are we really down to that level?

 

----  22 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

----First of all, there's no ground for a supernatural creation over a natural one in the first place.----

What I responded....-How can I verify you are wrong? Having dealt with others in this forum. I get the 1LT was not violated because it was all there already. Nothing was created. No explanation how it was there, it was just there. When I bring up then how did that get around the 2LT I'm told it wasn't in effect then. How can I argue with science fiction? Science fiction is not repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. It's just made up. Since you chose the natural approach, it MUST fit with nature. The 2LT not being in effect naturally, is just science fiction. Just having something there with NO explanation how is science fiction. You can argue with that until you're blue in the face, but it's NOT science.-

 

Then you have the gall to respond with, "The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no additional energy inputs.  The Earth is not a closed system, and we're constantly getting energy from that big shiny thermonuclear thingamajig up there in the sky 152 million kilometres away."

[Johnny]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Miracles aren't repeatable and falsifiable, either.

I need to inform you that there is a difference between natural and supernatural. 

 

Natural laws apply to nature. Natural laws show certain events could not have happened naturally. Those natural laws are repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. Again, natural laws show certain things can't happen naturally. It shows this 100%. Now to people like you, naturally is the only winner regardless. Then you most certainly have that right to believe that as you also have the right to pretend you're rational. 

 

Speaking of rational, you brought up to another forum member....

 

---------

I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

----------------------------

Me again....Did you ever apologize to that member how you are just spreading that same lie because you didn't care what the real story was?

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

 

For that matter, have you ever looked into that site you offered? Doubtful, since you used it to verify what you were giving was the whole truth. 

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny

 

Is there any objective evidence of which you are aware that there is in fact any such thing as a "spiritual being"?

 

 

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Have you ever had reading comprehension?

 

Yes.  And I'm not going to be lectured by someone who believes in "spiritual beings" but can't support his assertions with evidence that is up to our standards.

 

Stop pretending that you're science-savvy.  You're just another pretentious and insufferably rude little god-botherer pretending to have wisdom that all of us somehow overlooked in our many, many years of exposure to ChristInsanity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Johnny, you will immediately cease personal attacks against our members.  Otherwise, you can pack your bags.  I'm not asking, son.