Does man have a soul?

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:56 pm

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:23 am

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Really which part.

1. That evolution is not happening now.

I believe that is the reason why the theory of Punctuated equilibrium was developed. You know that one. The one that says that evolution goes very quickly in small little regions and then stops for long periods of time. And we just happen to be in one of those small period of time that evolution is not taking place. Oh, yea it is really taking place today. I believe Gould came up with that one.

2. The evolution never happen in the past
3. Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

We will put these two together. From the second law of thermodynamics the following equation can be derived.

(Delta)G= (delta)H - T(delta)Sth - T(Delta)Sc

G is gibbs free energy
H is enthalpy
Sth is entropy of thermal work
Sc is Configurational entropy

For a reaction to occur spontaneously G has to be less than 0. Now when no new information needs to be added to DNA Sth and Sc are 0 because God already organized in the DNA molecule.

Now according to your "theory" of evolution at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion there was mainly just invertebrates and very little else. The by the end of the Cambrian Explosion every major phyla that we see today and more was in existence 10 million years later.

So according to your "theory of evolution" information organized itself in DNA to form all of these different phyla. Matter cannot do that with out energy. These are the last to terms in my equation Sth and Sc.

Sth is the energy it takes to organize the energy in a useful form

Sc which comes form the equation Sc = Scm - Scr

So lets assume that we want to go from a invertebrate to a fish.

Scm is the number of arrangements that will produce the desired effect. Which in this case is 1 so Scm is 0. Scr can be thought of as the number of ways that mass can be arranged. In this case Scr is very high.

So evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics because it is not enough to have energy because it takes energy to organize that energy. And then it also takes energy to organize the amino acids in the DNA molecule.

Both of these together of even just pushes Gibbs free energy high enough that this cannot not happen according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This is also the reason why abiogenesis can never happen. It is not because we do not have enough scientific knowledge it is because it cannot because it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:12 am

[Replying to post 31 by EarthScienceguy]

(Delta)G= (delta)H - T(delta)Sth - T(Delta)Sc

I've spent my career as a physical chemist so I'm familiar with Gibbs free energy and the second law of thermodynamics, which is:

dG=dHâˆ’TdS

where G is Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy and S is entropy. This only applies to a CLOSED system (which is earth is NOT ... that big ball of plasma some 92 million miles away dumps a lot of energy our way). For any spontaneous change in a closed system, the change in [Gibbs] free energy equals the change in enthalpy minus the change in entropy times the temperature.

Matter cannot do that with out energy.

And what do you call the roughly 1 kW/cm2 of energy that hits every square meter of sunlit surface on the earth? This old 2nd law of thermodynamics attack on ToE has been trotted out countless times before by theists, who conveniently ignore the fact that the earth is not a closed system so the argument falls apart completely.

Now when no new information needs to be added to DNA Sth and Sc are 0 because God already organized in the DNA molecule.

Man, that would have come in handy during my college days! If I got partway through a math problem and couldn't work out the next step, a simple "and God organized the variables as follows" would have saved the day. Unfortunately, I went to a real university and they wanted the actual, correct answer.

You should drop countering any ToE arguments with the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against it. That is old and worn out, and more importantly, completely incorrect as the earth system is not a closed system.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:03 pm

Does it occur to you that such "miracle events" are suspiciously close to make believe? Whether these stories are true or not makes little difference I suppose, unless one chooses to suppose that the world really operates in accordance with make believe. Because people who truly believe that the world operates in accordance with make believe are subject to making tragic decisions.

It does not seem to do anything to your belief. Your theories even say that we are make believe. So this should be easy for you to explain because everything we see is make believe according to your theories.

I wish you would supply me with the list of scientists that hold credentials for prestigious universities that deny the big bang theory and biogenesis. Because I have heard this claim time and again, but the list inevitably turns out to be woefully short. Wikipedia has a page listing various individuals of various religions that have become atheists. And it is extensive.

You know most of my scientist that I would name. They are from places like answers in Genesis and ICR. and they have doctorates and everything. And many used to believe in naturalistic theories until they looked at the evidence.

In fact a few weeks ago I sat down and talked with Danny Faulkner about his new theory on the formation of the universe. He taught astronomy at a secular university for years. He retired from that university to work for Answers in Genesis. He taught many of his theories at that secular university.

I should also point out that atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is the LACK of religious belief. Declaring atheism to be an alternate kind of religion is part of the make believe world that believers inhabit. During your visit to DC&R, if you learn nothing else, at least try to understand that atheism is not a form of religion. Neither is it a form Satanism. Nor are Atheists individuals who have a grudge against God. Atheists in fact tend to have a very thorough knowledge of Christianity, what Christians believe and why. Better than many Christians in fact.

It would not take much to have more knowledge about the Bible then most Christians do. Most Christians do not even read the book that they profess. I would also say that many if not most people that profess to be Christians are not Christians. The Bible even says that is the case. You put these two things together causes people to do really stupid things.

All genuine religions have a certain common thread. And that is some appeal, some notion, that there exists a supernatural element. All genuine religions are founded on the assumption of the existence of the supernatural, that the supernatural interacts with the human realm, and that humans can interact with the supernatural through right actions. Atheists have no such belief! REALLY! If you try to understand and accept that concept you will at least have some basis for understanding where atheist are coming from, in the same way that atheists understand where believers are coming from.

You actually have two beliefs. One is belief in yourself, this belief allows you to have your sin choice. This is the same belief that everyone else has. Atheist just don't like the guilt they feel when they do sin. So they invent a the story that there is no God to try to rid themselves of the guilt that they feel.

Because of this story that they invented their belief led them in to a pantheistic belief that natural world created everything.

If this is true, than the existence of God violates the law of conservation of energy. Because we are faced with two possibilities; one is that something simply popped into existence where nothing had existed previously, and the other possibility is that "something" has always existed. Has God existed eternally? Is that possible?

The law of conservation of energy states:

If energy can neither be created or destroyed it is eternal. Which sounds very much like the claim that God has existed eternally. The difference is that the law of conservation of energy was formulated after centuries of observation and experimentation.

It is certainly possible that something can exist eternally. In fact Sean Carroll an atheist physicist developed a theory of a "mother universe" that has spawned all of the other universes in the multiverse. Something has to be eternal.

The law of conservation of mass was developed by Lavoisier during the French revolution. And he did all kinds of experiment to prove it was true. So maybe not centuries. Lavoisier died at a young age because he was a tax collector. The French revolution was a very bad to to be a tax collector.

Unfortunately, the explanation does not include claims that humans maintain a special place in the universe, or that humans have an invisible "essence," and that when humans die this invisible "essence" will go to an invisible place to be with invisible friends. That is a part of the make believe world that many people prefer to inhabit. And I an sorry, I am not a worn out belief salesman offering you a better deal on a model called atheism. It is observed that all living things die. Make believe is not being offered, because make believe has no effect on reality.

Finally to the subject of the debate.

Why is having an invisible "essence" hard to believe? God cannot be made of anything that in in this universe if He made. Time, matter, energy are all constructs of this universe, so God could not be made of any of these materials.

We also cannot be God because then we would not be individuals, with each person subject to the choices that they make.

We are distinct individuals that have the the opportunity to be with Christ forever. If this though is true then this body is a "temple" that our soul lives and uses to interpret the world around us. So when the temple becomes injured by a defect it simply inhibits the soul from interpreting the world we are living in now.

If we are to live with God eternally, then there has to be something inside of use that is eternal and of the same substance that God is made of. Otherwise that would not be possible.

The "characteristics" of the God of the Bible are self Contradictory. Is the God of the Bible omnipotent?

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Or is the God of the Bible fallible?

Genesis 6:
and it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

You all must like this verse in Genesis this is like the second or third time it has been mentioned.

Repented is actually a bad translation of the Hebrew world here. The Hebrew world used here is "nacham" and in this case it means to comfort oneself. So God is upset about what He is going to have to do to the men that He loves. So much so that He has to comfort himself.

Observation of the universe we live in indicates that matter/energy interacts with itself in predictable ways known as the laws of physics. The laws of Physics are not self contradictory.

This is the exact opposite of what your theory predicts. Your naturalistic theory based on probability predicts a chaotic please where nothing can be predicted. The only way to get an ordered world is with a God which orders everything.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:04 pm

[Replying to post 32 by DrNoGods]

And what do you call the roughly 1 kW/cm2 of energy

Correction ... that should have been 1 kW/m2 (1 kW per square meter). Didn't catch this until too late to edit.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:02 pm

Well Good, then you should be familiar with the thermodynamics of an internal combustion engine.

Now are you meaning closed system, open system or isolated system. The Earth would be considered a closed system and not an isolated system, just so we are all one the same page. I think in your post you were thinking of an isolated system.

where G is Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy and S is entropy. This only applies to a CLOSED system (which is earth is NOT ... that big ball of plasma some 92 million miles away dumps a lot of energy our way). For any spontaneous change in a closed system, the change in [Gibbs] free energy equals the change in enthalpy minus the change in entropy times the temperature.

Yeah, that sun sure does send a lot of energy our way, so why can't bricks use the energy the energy of the sun to grow? Like plants do?

Because plants have a system, they have a mechanism to make the energy useful. The plant has to expend energy to decrease the entropy of the sun energy to make it useful. Same is true for a solar cell, the cell used a metal to convert solar energy into useful energy.

The same is also true for a car, except in the car it is not the sun, at least not in a direct way. The car uses the energy from a spark plug to change chemical energy into mechanical energy by way of the engine.

Energy has to be directed to be useful. This is how plants and animals can use energy because they have a mechanism in place to do so.

Same is also true of information.

A crystal is a very ordered arrangement but it cannot hold information because because it is not very complexed. It has only one arrangement that it will exist in.

DNA on the other hand can hold information because it because it can exist in many different arrangements. But with only one arrangement that will convey the information intended. But to put it in this arrangement requires energy just like anything else.

Now when no new information needs to be added to DNA Sth and Sc are 0 because God already organized in the DNA molecule.

Are you trying to tell me that DNA does not contain information? If so I think you might want to get your money back on your degree. I was simply saying that DNA contains information now if you do not think DNA carries information then I am not sure how anything exists.

Now for DNA can only be in one arrangement of the trillion possible arrangements. And do you know what it takes to arrange DNA into this one possible arrangement? Directed energy. So it takes both directed energy and the correct arrangement amino acids for life to change from one form to another.

Nature has no model to direct the energy to arrange the amino acids into the correct arrangement. This fact is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:34 pm

[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]

The Earth would be considered a closed system

No, the earth is not a closed system. This is the fundamental mistake most people make when to use the second law of thermodynamics to discredit ToE. The fact that the earth gets energy from the sun (and lots of it) is the reason it is not a closed system. So drop that erroneous condition and the argument falls apart.

The car uses the energy from a spark plug to change chemical energy into mechanical energy by way of the engine.

The energy actually comes from the combustion of the fuel/air mixture, the force of which pushes a piston to create the mechanical motion. The spark plug only initiates the explosion ... it does not provide the energy that does the work of moving the vehicle.

But to put it in this arrangement requires energy just like anything else.

Exactly why the earth is not a CLOSED system, and why this argument you are putting forth falls apart.

Are you trying to tell me that DNA does not contain information? If so I think you might want to get your money back on your degree. I was simply saying that DNA contains information now if you do not think DNA carries information then I am not sure how anything exists.

No ... I was replying to your comment that "God already organized in the DNA molecule." But again, this whole argument that the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution is useless because the earth is not a closed system, no matter how many times you say it. Theists have tried this argument countless times so it is nothing new here on this website, or anywhere else. It fails because of the erroneous assumption that the earth system is a closed system.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:25 pm

[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]

Nature has no model to direct the energy to arrange the amino acids into the correct arrangement. This fact is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics.

This article is a better explanation of why the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not invalidate the theory of evolution:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 009-0195-3

Have a read of this article and then come back and point out what sections you don't agree with. It addresses most of the standard anti-evolutionist 2nd law points, which are exactly the same ones you are making.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:29 pm

[Replying to post 36 by DrNoGods]

Dude, what you are trying to say is that the Earth is not an "Isolated system". A system which neither energy or matter can enter the system.

A closed system is a system in which only energy can enter the system.

open, closed or isolated the laws of thermodynamics still say that they need energy to be organized. Like it or not.

Unless you can show quantitatively how it doesn't

Post by **DrNoGods** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:48 pm

[Replying to post 38 by EarthScienceguy]

Dude, what you are trying to say is that the Earth is not an "Isolated system". A system which neither energy or matter can enter the system.

Your argument that the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution requires a closed system. Here is a description of the differences between a closed system, an open system, and an isolated system:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Ma ... rroundings

An isolated system does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.

A closed system is a system that exchanges only energy with its surroundings, not matter.

An open system is a system that freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings.

The earth is clearly an OPEN system as it can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings (eg. receiving photons and solar wind components from the sun, and having atmospheric gases escape into space over time, as well as photons). It is not a closed system OR an isolated system.

open, closed or isolated the laws of thermodynamics still say that they need energy to be organized. Like it or not.

And how does this relate to the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidating the theory of evolution? This is the point you made in post 26 that I am refuting, but the earth is an OPEN system (not isolated or closed) so the 2nd law argument against evolution fails. See the article I linked in post 37 and tell me what is wrong in that description.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:11 am

[Replying to DrNoGods]

we describe a simple thought experiment that illustrates this concept. Imagine three â€œthermally isolated systemsâ€� on a laboratory bench in the forms of three identical covered petri dishes used for growing bacterial cultures. At time zero, there are no bacteria in the dishes, but each dish contains identical amounts of a nutrient substrate, glucose. Glucose (a product of photosynthesis) is a low entropy form of chemical energy, so the total amount of entropy in each dish at the start of the experiment is relatively low. If we leave one of the dishes undisturbed over a relatively long period of time, the glucose in that dish will very slowly degrade as it oxidizes (reacts with oxygen in the air) and is converted to heat and lower energy breakdown products, increasing the dishâ€™s total entropy over time (red trajectory in Fig. 3). Now, imagine that we add 100 identical bacteria each to the two remaining dishes at time zero. These bacteria take up glucose from their environment via transmembrane glucose transport channels (see Fig. 1) and metabolize it, facilitating cell division and bacterial growth; as the bacterial population increases in number, the amount of glucose in the system decreases, and the amount of metabolic waste and heat (entropy) increases with time in the first bacteria dish (blue trajectory, Fig. 3). Since the bacteria are highly organized dissipative structures that degrade glucose far more efficiently compared with atmospheric oxidation alone, the total amount of glucose in this dish is depleted much more rapidly compared with the bacteria-free dish (red trajectory). Lastly, imagine the second dish (green trajectory) with a starting population of 100 bacteria identical to the first dish (blue trajectory). These bacteria initially begin to divide and consume glucose at the same rate as the blue trajectory bacteria; however, let us now assume that, at an early time-point (green arrow), an individual bacterium experiences a rare beneficial mutation in the gene coding for its transmembrane glucose transport protein, enabling the progeny of this mutant bacterium to import environmental glucose at significantly faster rates compared with the original blue trajectory bacterial strain. The new, more efficient green strain will divide and consume glucose at an even faster rate than the blue strain, thus depleting the dishâ€™s glucose and achieving maximum system entropy at an earlier time point. That is, natural selection favors the genetic mutation that leads to the faster rate of entropy. Similarly, a random beneficial mutation in a muscle gene of a predator (say, a lion) that facilitates a more rapid skeletal muscle contraction could allow progeny expressing the mutation to capture prey more efficiently, leading to an increased rate of net system entropy (in this case, the conversion of zebras and wildebeests into higher states of entropy: heat and lion poop) while at the same time slightly decreasing entropy within small subsystems (namely, the population of lions). Far from contradicting biological evolution, entropy is a thermodynamic driving force that facilitates natural selection.

This is your quantitative argument? A thought experiment that creationist would agree with. This "thought experiment" has nothing to do with adding information to the genome. This article does not describe how Gibbs free energy could increase what an organism increases complexity. Or where the energy comes form to organize the matter and energy. (sorry that was a little redundant)

Not a single quantitative analysis of the energy involved. This article is nothing more than a statement of the author's belief. Not a rigorous proof of the energies involved in evolution.