Johnny: what is a 'spiritual being' ?

[Astreja]

35 minutes ago, midniterider said:

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

 

I wish he'd just get to the razzafracking point of why he even bothered to come here.  It's obvious that none of us are buying what he has on offer, because it's the same old Argument from Incredulity with a soupçon of Sciencey-Sounding Stuff.  Do none of these Bible-thumpers realize that they have to meet our standards for evidence, rather than whatever convinced them?

 

Johnny blithely glossed over the point that I was trying to make regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - it only applies in certain circumstances.  (Thanks, Walter, for asking and re-asking the question about which thermodynamic system applies to the universe.)

 

It would have taken so little effort to stretch the imagination from this solar system to the known universe.  Why should we assume that the 2LT applies to the universe if we don't even know if it has a boundary?

 

And even if the 2LTdid apply, this does not support the assumption that the causal entity was a preexisting sentient being of any sort.

 

I think it's safe to eliminate the god of the Bible from consideration - the silly bugger couldn't even deal with a Talking Snake™  in its garden of magic trees.  Designing something like atomic valence is waaaay above its pay grade. 

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny,

 

You have not answered my question.

It would seem that you are deliberately hiding from it.

 

You have claimed that you accept no belief except that for which you have evidence.

("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.")

 

And yet, your entire belief system is predicated upon something you are unable to even define.

 

Should that not tell you something?

What is a spirit, Johnny?

 

Perhaps if you pray to God he will reveal this most fundamental truth to you.

The Bible says that if you pray God will reveal himself to you.

And He is the divine spirit, is he not?

 

Then perhaps you could enlighten us.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Johnny just ignores questions he doesn't have an answer for.  Seems like we have seen that before.

[walterpthefirst]

 14 hours 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. 

 

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

 

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that, Johnny.

 

For your creationist friends to make their probability-based arguments in the first place they had to select a sample space within which to determine the probability or improbability of an event.

 

In this case that event was the origin of life.

 

What they did was to cheat by using the visual horizon of the universe as a hard boundary - when it isn't.

 

Then they calculated that life was too improbable to have arisen by itself within this notional boundary.

 

Nothing has been added to this piece of trickery by non-creationists.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny,

 

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

 

And please tell me how you know which type it is.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, Johnny said:

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

What is "science", Johnny?

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny

 

Speaking for myself, I do not wish to see you go anywhere.

 

You are an example of the sort of person who stands firm in your belief of something you've never really thought about.

 

For what it may be worth Johnny, I once did the same thing.

And I can speak for many others here in saying they did also.

We value your presence here because you are making the point so well, for all to see.

 

I'll assume that prior to my asking the question, you never once stopped to consider the meaning of the word "spirit". And even so, you went on to formulate an entire belief system around something you can't even define.

 

Almost every member here once believed Johnny.

And most of us once based strongly-held belief on something we never really fully defined.

 

Objective reasoning Johnny. That's what we all had to learn the hard way.

It isn't easy letting go of belief that you hold onto because it makes you feel good.

There is objective truth, and that truth doesn't care how you feel about it, nor how I feel about it.

 

Most of us come here because we value reasoning that attempts to be as objective as humanly possible.

And that's not an easy thing to do. Folks like yourself serve to remind us why it matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Johnny]

22 hours ago, midniterider said:

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

To be expected by people like you who have no evidence how this all came about on its own. Such words you provide somehow makes you feel smart but you know, you can't produce evidence. But I must say, you all sure can provide science fiction and lame excuses.

[midniterider]

8 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

@Johnny,

 

 

 

And yet, your entire belief system is predicated upon something you are unable to even define.

 

 

Unable to define, or see, or experience, or hold a normal conversation with.

[midniterider]

2 minutes ago, Johnny said:

To be expected by people like you who have no evidence how this all came about on its own. Such words you provide somehow makes you feel smart but you know, you can't produce evidence. But I must say, you all sure can provide science fiction and lame excuses.

 

Where's the evidence of God? Jesus? 

[Johnny]

8 hours ago, Astreja said:

Do none of these Bible-thumpers realize that they have to meet our standards for evidence, rather than whatever convinced them?

Now that's funny! You should get into comedy. Yes, you're standards of this was all there already in a little dot for.....for.....for...eternity. Then this eternal dot that has EVERYTHING in it just at a particular time.....expanded. It expanded at such a rate that was so perfect, such an expansion by real numbers and odds show it to be impossible. This group has shown though you can write off any odds, it does not matter to you. The hell with the odds, you'll believe such absurd things anyway, along with something, everything this universe has was there eternally with no causation of it. I sure agree with....

 

Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).

 

Then, on top of that this natural dot with everything in it expanded and did all these things to form our universe with the 2LT holding off somehow, and at some point did come into effect. This uncaused 'everything' that did things that are outside our scientific realm of natural. There are so many holes in your absurd beliefs and yet you have the gall to say, "they have to meet our standards for evidence"

 

Then from there we have the fine-tuning. Another thing I brought up was life and the law of biogenesis but it does not exist to you, at least that's what I'm seeing. The more they see what life takes, the more it shows it can't come about on its own. But you can't allow a supernatural power had to do it so you'll stick with naturalistic means that shows you hit a brick wall. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the laugh about your "standards for evidence." The irony is off the charts.

8 hours ago, Astreja said:

Johnny blithely glossed over the point that I was trying to make regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - it only applies in certain circumstances.  (Thanks, Walter, for asking and re-asking the question about which thermodynamic system applies to the universe.)

Actually, if you were honest, and you're not, the topic was on creation and I showed your poor reading comprehension. I didn't gloss over a thing. You're lying may work with your fellow members but not with me. 

 

I also need to inform about a point that is so BASIC you don't know it either...the 2LT works in ALL systems. It does not go away. If you ever really thought, our system has to deal with the 2LT also. Again, ALL systems do. Oh, but I guess you missed that in your "standards for evidence."

 

8 hours ago, Astreja said:

It would have taken so little effort to stretch the imagination from this solar system to the known universe.  Why should we assume that the 2LT applies to the universe if we don't even know if it has a boundary?

As others have written in regards to this subject of what system the universe is in...

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

“Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).

 

“A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).

 

"---The universe is an isolated system because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Likewise, matter cannot be added or taken away from the universe."

 

"---The universe is an isolated system as the universe in itself is a system with no surroundings. With the first law of thermodynamics, no energy in the universe can be created or destroyed, so the universe is an isolated system."

 

"---The universe is isolated because neither matter or energy can be exchanged with it. This is because the universe encompasses everything, so it does not have surroundings it could exchange matter or energy with."

 

All that we see shows we are an isolated system. We've NEVER observed anything break the 1st and 2nd laws. Once you go claiming you did naturally, you are into science fiction. Once you go claiming this all happened naturally with NO cause and the laws did not apply, you are into science fiction. Oh, but by your standards for evidence, the hell with what science shows, you want to go with any lame excuse to you can have your way.

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny

 

Is there any objective evidence for the existence of any spirit, of any kind?

[pantheory]

16 hours ago, Johnny said:

"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

 

 

 

Yep, you're right Johnny,

 

Some now call Biogenesis a law since it's the only known way that life proliferates.

 

I didn't tell you Johnny that I am a scientist. I graduated in Mathematics in college and spent more than 6 yeas studying math-science. You are right in that nowadays they do have a hypothesis called Biogenesis that they didn't have when I went to college. It says:

 

From a non-Christian website the wording is a little different:

Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.

 

But From a Christian website:

 

The law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life.

 

https://creationwiki.org/Law_of_biogenesis

 

 

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

 

Biogenisis was never called a Law when I went to school, but I don't object to it. But hardly anyone, however, knows what a law is according to science.

 

What is a law in science:?  A law is something that always happens, based upon experiments (to date). 

"Scientific law is a statement describing what always happens under certain conditions."

 

https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/1.4/primary/lesson/scientific-law-ms-ps/

 

For instance, Newton's Law of gravity is still called Newton's law, even though we know there are exceptions to it, explained by Einstein. We use Newton's law instead of Einstein;s for all our Engineering work, planetary travels etc. because it's far simpler, and the differences between the two is inconsequential concerning such calculations. Einstein's gravity might work better when gravity is far stronger, or when much longer time periods are involved.

 

Biogenesis was not even a word without a hyphen maybe 50 years ago, bio-genesis, since it was so obvious -- life comes from life, maybe with possible exceptions.

 

A Law in science: is something stated that is believed to always happen under normal circumstances.

 

So life coming from other life can be stated as a law. But that does not exclude exceptions involving different circumstances such as Abiogenesis  -- life coming from non-life under unusual or designed circumstances.

 

Abiogenesis defined:  In biology, abiogenesis, or the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

 

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

 

There are many, almost countless possible ways that this might have happened, but all must be called hypothesis since nothing has been proven as yet.
 

And it's also important to remember that Scientists are not against religion. Based upon present polls, half the scientists in America believe in God or a higher power of some kind, so many religious ideas, theories,  laws, and definitions were created by religious scientists, including science videos showing the known problems of abiogenesis.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

 

As to your link above concerning panspermia, yes aboard a meteorite, living organisms would burn up  upon re-entry in our atmosphere, but life within a "close-call" comet would graze our atmosphere, part of it could remain in our atmosphere, and its droplets could  float down to the surface o the Earth in time containing life within it.

 

Anyway Johnny, I too was an Engineer for many years like yourself, I also started out as an apprentice. I worked in many fields of Engineering including manufacturing Engineering, Quality Control Engineering, Value engineering, electron-mechanical design engineering, Industrial and time study engineering, etc. 

But all those years I was also performing and studying science on a part time basis.

 

Maybe the big difference between our beliefs was that I also studied many different types of religions when I was young. I started out a Christian like yourself. After studying religion for a couple of years as a teenager,  I came to the conclusion that all religions were Myth like Greek mythology, hardly more than a joke based upon the Bible. From there I turned to science and decided that some of it was also disappointingly wrong.

 

After years of study in college I wrote papers on what was wrong with modern science. I "knew" that evolution theory was almost perfect. There was a mountain of evidence to support it. It was undeniable, but of coarse some minor hypothesis within the theory could be wrong.

 

But the obvious problems with science, IMHO, were cosmology and quantum theory -- I felt both theories were wrong, at least in some ways.

 

But also that the scientific method was often not being followed, another big problem. Here are my most recent hypotheses/ theory concerning these errors of science IMHO       Johnny, and others who may be interested

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

 

[midniterider]

Waits for Johnny to provide evidence of the God of the Bible ... because arguing thermodynamics ain't it. 

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, Johnny said:

To be expected by people like you who have no evidence how this all came about on its own. Such words you provide somehow makes you feel smart but you know, you can't produce evidence. But I must say, you all sure can provide science fiction and lame excuses.

 

You lie.  

Tell us that part about how if we don't believe as you do your sky fairies will punish us.  Then you can go away.

[alreadyGone]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Waits for Johnny to provide evidence of the God of the Bible ... because arguing thermodynamics ain't it. 

 

Get in line please...

I'm waiting for Johnny to provide any objective evidence that any spirit of any kind actually exists.

 

That could include a God, any god.

Or any angel, or any demonic spirit (as described by those primitive superstitious folk in the Bible), or any human spirit.  I'll take any evidence of the existence of any spirit he cares to offer.

 

Of course, we need to start from a definition of the word spirit itself.

And I'm losing all confidence that Johnny can provide that either.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

30 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Get in line please...

I'm waiting for Johnny to provide any objective evidence that any spirit of any kind actually exists.

 

That could include a God, any god.

Or any angel, or any demonic spirit (as described by those primitive superstitious folk in the Bible), or any human spirit.  I'll take any evidence of the existence of any spirit he cares to offer.

 

Of course, we need to start from a definition of the word spirit itself.

And I'm losing all confidence that Johnny can provide that either.

 

 

 

That's exactly a good question since it is exactly on topic -- something I failed to consider in my last posting Johnny is not familiar with our objective to generally stay on topic without straying too far off topic.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

With no hard evidence at this time about where all this "stuff" came from, and if "spirits" exist, this discussion may go on into infinity. 

[alreadyGone]

 

3 minutes ago, Weezer said:

With no hard evidence at this time about where all this "stuff" came from, and if "spirits" exist, this discussion may go on into infinity. 

 

6 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

That's exactly a good question since it is exactly on topic -- something I failed to consider in my last posting Johnny is not familiar with our objective to generally stay on topic without straying too far off topic.

 

 

Johnny may be working to his full potential and capacity here.

He may yet surprise us.

 

[pantheory]

11 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

 

 

 

Johnny may be working to his full potential and capacity here.

He may yet surprise us.

 

 

I see Johnny as a good and honest Christian -- like many of us once were Changing a person at his age to something different is highly unlikely IMO, but maybe we can give him food for thought that might help him someday.. At least it might enable him to be more understanding of science beliefs and ex-Christians I hope.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

32 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I see Johnny as a good and honest Christian -- like many of us once were Changing a person at his age to something different is highly unlikely IMO, but maybe we can give him food for thought that might help him someday.. At least it might enable him to be more understanding of science beliefs and ex-Christians I hope.

Maybe, if he doesn't have too much invested in his grandiose ego to let new thinking seep in.

 

Dang, I need to get off this site and get some work done.

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Johnny,

 

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

 

And please tell me how you know which type it is.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Twelve hours later and no reply from Johnny.

 

I'll have to persist.

 

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

 

And please tell me how you know what type it is.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Twelve hours later and no reply from Johnny.

 

I'll have to persist.

 

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

 

And please tell me how you know what type it is.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

4 hours ago, Johnny said:

As others have written in regards to this subject of what system the universe is in...

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

“Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).

 

“A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).

 

"---The universe is an isolated system because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Likewise, matter cannot be added or taken away from the universe."

 

"---The universe is an isolated system as the universe in itself is a system with no surroundings. With the first law of thermodynamics, no energy in the universe can be created or destroyed, so the universe is an isolated system."

 

"---The universe is isolated because neither matter or energy can be exchanged with it. This is because the universe encompasses everything, so it does not have surroundings it could exchange matter or energy with."

 

All that we see shows we are an isolated system. We've NEVER observed anything break the 1st and 2nd laws. Once you go claiming you did naturally, you are into science fiction. Once you go claiming this all happened naturally with NO cause and the laws did not apply, you are into science fiction. Oh, but by your standards for evidence, the hell with what science shows, you want to go with any lame excuse to you can have your way.

 

 

Just pointing out that he did give an answer in a rather manic response to Astreja.  Not a direct answer to you, so you might have missed it.  Hope this helps.

[Astreja]

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

The hell with the odds, you'll believe such absurd things anyway, along with something, everything this universe has was there eternally with no causation of it.

 

Sure beats the "creator-deity who hates pigs and foreskins (but created them anyway) comes down to Earth and temporarily gets itself killed because it can't figure out any other way to forgive" hypothesis.

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you Prof, I must have missed that.

 

 

But now there's a problem. (Two actually)

 

 "If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

Johnny has been most insistent that true science must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable.  Which means that I must ask him another question.

 

 

Johnny, can little imaginary spheres be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

 

 

Please answer.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.