Johnny: what is a 'spiritual being' ?

[midniterider]

Nothing has come to be that was not created by Our Lord The Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny,

 

What kind of thermodynamic system is the universe; isolated, closed or open?

 

And please also tell me how you know which one it is.

 

So that's two questions for you to answer please.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

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

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

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

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

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

 

Any argument that uses statistics to say how probable or improbable an event is must make use of a sample space.

 

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

 

In probability theory, the sample space (also called sample description space or possibility space) of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment.

 

But it is impossible to know what the set of all possible outcomes in the universe are because it is impossible to know where the sample space of the universe ends.

The 'edge' of the universe is simply a visual horizon and not a definite boundary that can be used to limit and define a sample space.

Therefore, without a properly defined sample space it is impossible to say how probable or improbable any event within the universe is.

It therefore follows that is it impossible to say that life is so improbable that it requires a supernatural origin.

It also follows that it is impossible to say that natural laws show that that certain events cannot have happened naturally.

Creationists 'cheat' by treating the visual horizon of the universe as the boundary of their sample space.

 

But it isn't.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Johnny]

2 hours ago, Astreja said:

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.

No, that didn't get you out of what you gave and showed you have poor reading comprehension. The subject was clearly about creation and you clearly missed that so go cry to your fellow members. It's ALL right there and if you want to lie, then lie. 

[alreadyGone]

Actually @Johnny the subject is the question you continue to avoid.

 

Perhaps you'll recall questioning my motive for creating this separate thread in order to ask:

What evidence is there that any spiritual being exists?  Human spirit, divine spirit, evil/demonic spirit, angelic spirit.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here to assert that neither you nor anyone you know has ever seen any spirit, spoken (directly) with any spirit, measured in any way the presence or essence of any spiritual being.

 

Surely you can understand the import of this question?

The basis of all Christian belief is that there is a divine spirit who/which created the universe and that human beings consist of two parts, a spiritual self and an animal/temporal self.

 

If there is in fact no human spirit, then there is no basis on which to believe in eternal life, a system of either eternal reward or punishment.

 

You assert that you accept nothing other than that for which you have evidence.

Tell me the evidence with which you have had personal experience which would establish the existence of a human spirit.

 

I fail to see how you can in honesty assert the existence of something for which you have no proof nor even a definition.

 

 

 

[Johnny]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

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.

How did that get around the law of biogenesis? You jump to a different topic and that was supposed to somehow answer the topic at hand when all you clearly wanted to do is divert from the topic under discussion. It's called the atheistic two-step. Don't deal with the science you can't get around, but rather divert from it. 

 

From the same person, you,  who brought up to another member something that was said, and I EVEN SHOWED IT, that you never investigated what the whole story was. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Johnny said:

How did that get around the law of biogenesis? You jump to a different topic and that was supposed to somehow answer the topic at hand when all you clearly wanted to do is divert from the topic under discussion. It's called the atheistic two-step. Don't deal with the science you can't get around, but rather divert from it. 

 

From the same person, you,  who brought up to another member something that was said, and I EVEN SHOWED IT, that you never investigated what the whole story was. 

 

What I posted is no attempt to get round anything, Johnny.

 

It's simply an illustration of how far apart we are when it comes to what we consider to be true science.

 

Just as the geologist in the hat couldn't agree with the two creationists, so we can't agree.

 

It's just a comparison and nothing more.

 

 

 

Now, please answer these questions.

 

 

What kind of thermodynamic system is the universe; isolated, closed or open?

 

And please also tell me how you know which one it is.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Johnny]

24 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Perhaps you'll recall questioning my motive for creating this separate thread in order to ask:

Starting a separate thread outside a thread topics are covered in and I joined in, then a whole separate thread is brought up targeted at me, and now you want a whole run down of me answering your questions out of a topic(s) that I was in that have a history to the chain of comments. So now I'm supposed to run and fetch anything you directed at me in a thread covering various subjects with me as the target. 

 

If you bring up biblical subjects, all I can give are biblical answers. Since the title of the forum isn't about believers but unbelievers in the bible or supernatural, then anything given regarding that is not going to be believed anyway. What I am showing how you hypocrites who claim no supernatural power was needed, is that you follow science fiction, not science. You claim a natural way from the start that led all the way to you. You CLEARLY can't even do that with the few subjects covered recording science. So it's a moot point on the subject of answering what the bible says when you believe everything was done naturally, no supernatural power regardless of any religions, was involved. 

[Johnny]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Any argument that uses statistics to say how probable or improbable an event is must make use of a sample space.

No, that was added to the science that shows life arising from non-life is not science. You want to believe in something we know much about by observation, repeatable, and falsifiable means. You're just showing how desperate you to ignore that. Despite the science we've done on life and what was shown, it will NOT effect you. You want your fairytale regardless. 

 

 

[Johnny]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

What I posted is no attempt to get round anything, Johnny.

Sure it was. Your silly excuse did not change that. The clear topic is the law of biogenesis because of what was brought up prior. You can start a separate thread title, not directed at me, showing that video that had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

 

 

[alreadyGone]

9 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Starting a separate thread outside a thread topics are covered in and I joined in, then a whole separate thread is brought up targeted at me, and now you want a whole run down of me answering your questions out of a topic(s) that I was in that have a history to the chain of comments. So now I'm supposed to run and fetch anything you directed at me in a thread covering various subjects with me as the target. 

 

If you bring up biblical subjects, all I can give are biblical answers. Since the title of the forum isn't about believers but unbelievers in the bible or supernatural, then anything given regarding that is not going to be believed anyway. What I am showing how you hypocrites who claim no supernatural power was needed, is that you follow science fiction, not science. You claim a natural way from the start that led all the way to you. You CLEARLY can't even do that with the few subjects covered recording science. So it's a moot point on the subject of answering what the bible says when you believe everything was done naturally, no supernatural power regardless of any religions, was involved. 

 

Personally, I have not mentioned science.

I have only asked a simple question, for which you clearly have no answer.

You are not willing to either offer an answer, or to reply "I do not know".

 

The question:  what is a 'spirit' ?

 

[Johnny]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

It shows you're a "Super Moderator." I clearly showed that the person can't read what the subject was. That offends you. I'm shown....

 

" 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."

 

I showed that it was VERY hard to miss the topic was on creation in what I was elaborating on. I brought that out but you're having a hissy fit with me for bringing up something I clearly proved. Oh, you can dish these things to me and I'm supposed to just take it because you're the high and mighty members I can't bring out such things to. Well I'm not packing my bags so you are more than free to shut the door to me here. Your members are not responsible for what they write somehow. I'm somehow supposed to just take it and not prove what they did. People are persons, what they do then IS "personal." 

 

Super Moderator, are you going to have Astreja packing their bags because of the personal attack on me?....

 

4 hours ago, Astreja said:

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.

That was really mean. Being your some fair Super Moderator you're not going to tolerate that, are you?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Johnny said:

That was really mean. Being your some fair Super Moderator you're not going to tolerate that, are you?

If you're going to attack Astreja first, don't be a whiny-ass little bitch about her attacking right back.

 

I warned you on your very first day here to keep your ad hominems to a minimum.  You're already on thin ice; if you insist on donning red hot skates, there's not much I can do for you.

 

I told you from the outset that if you approached us with respect, we'd reciprocate.  If you don't, however, then the consequences are yours to bear.

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

......................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. ................

 

 

 

Hi Johnny,

 

As others have pointed out to you, there is no such thing as the Law a Biogenesses.  What you mean, I expect, is that life must have been created from non-life, if God didn't create it, This is called the Abiogenesses hypotheses. There are dozens of such proposals concerning how the first life could have begun. The closest entities that we have that are not technically living are RNA organisms, which are primarily viruses. They do not classify as life because they cannot reproduce on their own. They are parasites and use living cell mechanisms to reproduce.  Most Abiogenesses hypotheses involve the first life evolving on Earth. I think I prefer the abiogenesses called panspermia, which says that Earth-life originated off the Earth in asteroids, comets, major or minor planets, and was later carried here by comets or meteorites.  The advantage of this theory is that it would have given the fist life a lot longer to have evolved before it came to Earth. This is important since the first kind of bacterial life that we know of here was not simple, but very complicated.

[midniterider]

The thread is a question: What is a spiritual being?

 

Johnny, do you have an answer? Anyone have an answer?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Please answer my questions, Johnny.

 

I see that you carefully dodged them.

 

But now I must ask you give to answers to them.

 

 

What kind of thermodynamic system is the universe; isolated, closed or open?

 

And please also tell me how you know which one it is.

 

 

Please answer.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

Poster Johnny is simply boring.

[Joshpantera]

On 7/4/2022 at 2:36 PM, Johnny said:

You couldn't even get a hint of what I meant?!

 

Yes, I addressed exactly what you meant. There's no reason to assert anything supernatural. It's completely unnecessary. Even for Idealist philosophy. Even something like primary Consciousness breaks down to natural, the nature of existence to be precise. There's no way out of this for you. 

 

On 7/4/2022 at 2:36 PM, Johnny said:

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

 

The human eye is the first one that usually comes up. 

 

Is the human eye badly designed?

In 1994, biology professor Kenneth R. Miller argued similarly that the human eye — “that supposed paragon of intelligent design” — is badly designed. “Quite naturally,” he wrote, “you (and any other designer) would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality.

Is the Human Eye Really Evidence Against ... - Evolution News

evolutionnews.org/2018/04/is-the-human-eye-really-evide…

 

On 7/4/2022 at 2:36 PM, Johnny said:

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.

 

Do you have evidence of the existence of an unfallen state, of the currently badly designed eye? 

 

We could have gotten here by way of abiogenesis or any number of ways. The point is that the mystery of exact origins, is, a mystery. It's not solved by creation myths nor secular science. Good luck trying to refute that fact. 

 

On 7/4/2022 at 2:36 PM, Johnny said:

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.

 

This illustrates that you have no understanding what science is or what it does, nor do you understand what mythology and religion is or what it does. You're at a complete loss on both subjects. 

 

Every conceptual model of reality relies on starting from a point where 'something that already exists,' with no explanation as to how or why, then moves forward through time to where we are right now, today. Both science and mythology rely on this. 'Something already exists,' then everything else comes from that mysteriously pre-existing state. 

 

God, for instance, is just there with no explanation. No beginning. Just there, existing with no explanation other than it's just what exists. That's how the God model, so to speak, works. 

 

So, by your own logic, God is nothing more than fiction or science fiction to be more precise??? Because that's what follows...

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

The thread is a question: What is a spiritual being?

 

Johnny, do you have an answer? Anyone have an answer?

 

 

 

It's a dualistic concept as presented by Johnny. Two things exist (1) spirit and (2) matter. 

[Johnny]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you're going to attack Astreja first, don't be a whiny-ass little bitch about her attacking right back.

You're really funny, "attacking." I point out your member has poor reading comprehension, give proof exactly why, and to you, that's "attacking." Now that funny! Then, on top of that, since your members can't fact the music for THEIR mishaps against me, you're so 'classy' in telling me...."don't be a whiny-ass little bitch about her attacking right back."

 

This forum is hilarious in a few ways. One, your supposed science-based backgrounds are a joke as I show. Two, the irony of how you accuse me of rules you accuse me of, you don't even follow. 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I warned you on your very first day here to keep your ad hominems to a minimum. 

 You mean ad hominems like this...

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you're going to attack Astreja first, don't be a whiny-ass little bitch about her attacking right back.

I gave proof about poor reading comprehension and you're angry because of that. Fairness is not exactly near the top on your list.  

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You're already on thin ice; if you insist on donning red hot skates, there's not much I can do for you.

I'm on thin ice for showing CLEARLY what was done in a reply to me. You want your members to get away with that, and in a very childish way. 

 

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I told you from the outset that if you approached us with respect, we'd reciprocate.

I was respectful. As I am with anything done unfair to me. I will bring it out to prove my point. You want respect for your members that are coming at me unfairly in what I clearly gave. And don't act so pious, you're a "moderator" who can't even control you emotions enough to even act like one...."If you're going to attack Astreja first, don't be a whiny-ass little bitch about her attacking right back."

 

Come on, you want to get rid of me because I'm showing your 'group' does not follow science, you follow absurdity. 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

As others have pointed out to you, there is no such thing as the Law a Biogenesses.  What you mean, I expect, is that life must have been created from non-life, if God didn't create it, This is called the Abiogenesses hypotheses.

 

Another "Dunning-Kruegger Effect" apologist...

[Johnny]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Johnny,

 

As others have pointed out to you, there is no such thing as the Law a Biogenesses.  What you mean, I expect, is that life must have been created from non-life, if God didn't create it, This is called the Abiogenesses hypotheses. There are dozens of such proposals concerning how the first life could have begun. The closest entities that we have that are not technically living are RNA organisms, which are primarily viruses. They do not classify as life because they cannot reproduce on their own. They are parasites and use living cell mechanisms to reproduce.  Most Abiogenesses hypotheses involve the first life evolving on Earth. I think I prefer the abiogenesses called panspermia, which says that Earth-life originated off the Earth in asteroids, comets, major or minor planets, and was later carried here by comets or meteorites.  The advantage of this theory is that it would have given the fist life a lot longer to have evolved before it came to Earth. This is important since the first kind of bacterial life that we know of here was not simple, but very complicated.

"As others have pointed out to you, there is no such thing as the Law a Biogenesses."

 

As I pointed out to you, there is and why there is. Denying it does not make it go away.

 

Even your side admits to what they are facing.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-biogenesis-part-i-4165/

 

https://apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-biogenesis-part-ii-4178/

 

At least get a BASIC idea of what you're facing. Just having chemicals there is FAR from giving life. We can't even give life when people die or any life that is truly dead. It's all there but we can't get it back to life. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3u3xH12GxU&t=3s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FLhC4OiOTU&t=2s

 

 

You're facing too how the information got there. Information only comes from intelligence. You're facing replication also.  

 

"I think I prefer the abiogenesses called panspermia, which says that Earth-life originated off the Earth in asteroids, comets, major or minor planets, and was later carried here by comets or meteorites."

 

It has to make a trip. That trip does not give advantages.

 

https://creation.com/panspermia-theory-burned-to-a-crisp-bacteria-couldn-t-survive-on-meteorite

 

 

 

 

[Astreja]

10 hours ago, Johnny said:

No, that didn't get you out of what you gave and showed you have poor reading comprehension. The subject was clearly about creation and you clearly missed that so go cry to your fellow members. It's ALL right there and if you want to lie, then lie. 

 

I never forgive someone who accuses me of lying.

 

My personal wish is that you lose your faith in the most catastrophic and painful way possible, and that you lose it permanently.

[Astreja]

12 hours ago, midniterider said:

Nothing has come to be that was not created by Our Lord The Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

 

Ramen!

[midniterider]

I wish Johnny would fast forward to the bit where we all burn in hell!!!!!!