Does man have a soul?

[EarthScienceguy]

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]

[Replying to post 69 by DrNoGods]

Thanks for the conversation and the new argument that I can use!!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 70 by EarthScienceguy]

So you think that 1 x 10exp43 molecules can arrange themselves on the first try to create all the life we see here on our planet. Really.

You read the paper. That is what Mr. Bunn is saying with his equation.

No this is NOT what he is saying in his paper ("first try" ... give us a break!), and if that is how you interpreted it it is just more proof that you have no grasp of the basic concepts and meaning of the various equations and their variables.

Presumably you are using the 10^43 number from section IV of the paper. He uses the estimate from reference 11 for the total carbon biomass of the earth at 10^15 kg, then he multiplies that by 100 just to provide a reasonable upper limit of 10^17 kg. This is in the context of his "dead earth" vs. today's earth, where all of the potential molecules that could be used for evolutionary processes are contained in the atmosphere of the hypothetical "dead earth." His point is to estimate the entropy reduction (dSlife) that would be required for life to develop via an evolutionary process, so that he can then compare this to the energy received from the sun (entropy production rather than entropy reduction). Then to compare to two quantities to see if there is any violation of the 2nd law.

The ideal gas law is used to estimate Nb, which is the number of molecules required to make up the biomass of the earth. If the total number of such molecules weighs 10^17 kg as he estimates (ref. 11, x 100), then the total number of molecules (Nb) can be gotten from the molecular weight of the molecule. So it is necessary to make some assumption on the nature of the molecules or atoms in order to get the molecular weight.

For example, say the molecules were a 50/50 mixture of CO2 (molecular weight 44) and CH4 (molecular weight 16). The average molecular weight is therefore 30 (which happens to be very close to the molecular weight of air at around 29). This is the mass, in grams, of 1 mole of the mixture (so in this example, 0.03 kg). 1 mole of anything has Avogadro's number (6.022 x 10^23) of particles (atoms, molecules, beer cans, etc.). So from this you get that 6.022 x 10^23 molecules of this mixture weighs 30 grams = 0.03 kg. Therefore, 10^17 kg of this stuff would have (10^17 / 0.03) * 6.022 x 10^23 = 2 x 10^42 molecules, consistent with his statement that "we still have fewer than 10^43 molecules). Of course, the mixture Bunn is referring to is not air or a 50/50 mixture of CH4 and CO2 and he doesn't specify exactly what he is assuming. But the point is that a 10^17 kg biomass would correspond to about 10^43, or fewer, total molecules. This could be out by a few orders of magnitude in either direction and not change his conclusion.

Nowhere does he suggest or imply that this number of molecules must form all of the life on planet earth on the "first try." That is pure fiction from you that has nothing to do with anything said or implied in the paper. What he does after he arrives at this "fewer than 10^43 molecules" number is to plug Nb into his Eqn. 4, using the value for u/kT of ~ -10, to get the absolute value of the entropy change needed for life on earth (ie. ~10^44k (Eqn. 5). Finally, he calculates the time for the process by dividing this 10^44 number by dS/dt from the sun (ie. the rate of entropy production by the sun). He arrives at 10^7 seconds which is less than a year, and compares that to the several billion years earth has had available.

So yet again, you are misinterpreting a paper, then purely making up a false statement that is not suggested or implied in any way by the paper, and then concluding that this proves your point. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, and you've done nothing to support your claim. Try again.

[EarthScienceguy]

Presumably you are using the 10^43 number from section IV of the paper. He uses the estimate from reference 11 for the total carbon biomass of the earth at 10^15 kg, then he multiplies that by 100 just to provide a reasonable upper limit of 10^17 kg. This is in the context of his "dead earth" vs. today's earth, where all of the potential molecules that could be used for evolutionary processes are contained in the atmosphere of the hypothetical "dead earth." His point is to estimate the entropy reduction (dSlife) that would be required for life to develop via an evolutionary process, so that he can then compare this to the energy received from the sun (entropy production rather than entropy reduction). Then to compare to two quantities to see if there is any violation of the 2nd law.

If he is talking entropy, he saying that the 10^43 molecules is going from an random state on the non-life earth to an ordered state on the earth that contains life. What is the probability of forming a even a Protein.

Unless you have other evidence that comes to the conclusion that this is not mostly random event. Outside your wonderful talk origins website. I think I will have to conclude that Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 73 by EarthScienceguy]

If he is talking entropy, he saying that the 10^43 molecules is going from an random state on the non-life earth to an ordered state on the earth that contains life. What is the probability of forming a even a Protein.

Evading the question and moving the goal posts ... again. The probability of 10^43 molecules forming a protein has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The point of the Bunn paper was to compare the entropy decrease due to evolution with the entropy increase due to the sun's energy. He made no comments or conclusions regarding HOW 10^43 molecules may have produced life because that is irrelevant to his argument. Whatever the mechanisms may be, it has no bearing on his analysis, which was a simple comparison of entropy decrease vs. entropy increase by using a total biomass value for the equivalent mass, and therefore number of molecules, in a hypothetical "dead earth" atmosphere that provided the starting materials.

Now you've somehow equated a purely statistical question (probability of 10^43 molecules forming a protein via a random process) with a thermodynamics issue relating to evolution, which are completely unrelated to each other. It is well known that subjecting even small volumes of simple gases to UV radiation and lightning (electrical sparks) can produce amino acids in a very short period of time. The first such experiment is the well known Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 where they used only CH4, NH3, H2O and H2 (now known to be the wrong representation of the early earth, but it demonstrated the fundamental point that a mixture of simple molecules exposed to real-world stimuli (UV light and electrical activity to simulate lightning) can produce amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins).

https://abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf

Similar experiments have been repeated many times, with more recent ones using better representations of the early earth atmosphere. It is easy to make amino acids using only small amounts of gases ... far fewer molecules than 10^43 and in only a few hours or days of time. See this for some examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2 ... experiment

For some numbers, take the original experiment linked above (the original M-U paper). They don't give the total volume of their apparatus but do mention a 5 liter flask. From the diagram, I'll assume the total volume of the complete system was 4x this or 20 liters. That's obviously a guess, but reasonable. At 1 atmosphere pressure (1013.25 mb) the total number of molecules can be gotten using Loschmidt's number which is 2.6868 x 10^19 molecules per cm^3 at 273K (0C). Since they were boiling water (100C temperature) I'll assume the average temperature in the system was 50C for lack of a better guess. In that case the number of molecules per cm^3 is less (proportional to T) because the thermal velocity of the molecules is faster (it drops to 2.2 x 10^19 molecules per cm^3). A 20L volume is 20,000 cubic cm, so the total number of molecules in their experiment was in the ballpark of 20,000 * 2.2 x 10^19 = 4.4 x 10^23. This is 20 orders of magnitude less than Bunn's number of 10^43.

In the real earth's atmosphere, there is UV light (from the sun) and lightning, winds and storms etc. to mix things up, rain, rivers flowing, volcanic eruptions, sub-sea thermal vents emitting gases, etc. So if some amino acids can be made in a 20L flask in a few days time, what probability would you give to a protein forming from 10^20 times that volume (again, 20 orders of magnitude more) over a billion years time (9 orders of magnitude more time than in the M-U experiment)?

Again, this has nothing at all to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but shows that the probability of complex molecules like amino acids and proteins forming on the early earth was essentially 1. That is a long way from forming a living, single-celled organism, but if you think 10^43 molecules in the earth's early atmosphere could not randomly interact with UV light, lightning, etc. and form a protein you are very badly mistaken.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

He made no comments or conclusions regarding HOW 10^43 molecules may have produced life

Then it has nothing to do with whether evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Creating order out of chaos is what increasing entropy means. If he is saying that these molecules are still in random motion. He has proven nothing. Except how many molecules he thinks there are that make up life.

It is well known that subjecting even small volumes of simple gases to UV radiation and lightning (electrical sparks) can produce amino acids in a very short period of time.

Yes, I know I took this into account in my probability calculation. That would have been the divisor.

A 20L volume is 20,000 cubic cm, so the total number of molecules in their experiment was in the ballpark of 20,000 * 2.2 x 10^19 = 4.4 x 10^23. This is 20 orders of magnitude less than Bunn's number of 10^43.

Does not make a difference. I used 100 as my dividen. 4.4 x 10^23 simply give an infinite amount of time.

Good luck with your number calculating.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 75 by EarthScienceguy]

Then it has nothing to do with whether evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

Right, that was my point. You made the comment that "he is saying that 10^43 molecules is going from an random state on the non-life earth to an ordered state on the earth that contains life?, and your very next sentence was "What is the probability of forming even a protein", which has no relation whatsoever to the preceding sentence, and neither have anything to do with evolution and the 2nd law.

Creating order out of chaos is what increasing entropy means.

No, that's what DECREASING entropy means.

He has proven nothing.

His point was to show that the decrease in entropy required for life via evolution is many orders of magnitude smaller than the increase in entropy provided by the sun's energy input over a billion years of time, and therefore evolution does not viiolate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your responses are jumping around to unrelated points such as the probability of 10^43 molecules randomly forming a protein.

Yes, I know I took this into account in my probability calculation. That would have been the divisor.

Are you referring to your comments in post 67, where you calculated a random huge number, assigned it to something it isn't, then plugged that (wrong) number into Bunn's equation for time to get another huge number? OK ... let's tear that down. What Bunn did is simple. He took the total, present biomass on the earth, and multiplied by 100 to get a reasonable upper limit of 10^17 kg. Then he estimated the total number of molecules that would represent using the ideal gas law. That is where the 10^43 number came from. This is the high entropy, unordered state of these random 10^43 molecules. Then he calculates the entropy decrease for life using u/kT ~ -10, and compares that to the entropy increase from the sun's energy, to arrive at his time of ~10^7s.

Here is what you did for your apples to oranges comparison (see footnote below). You calculated some huge number based on the possible number of sequences for a 100 amino acid polypeptide. Then you made the huge (and incorrect) leap of claiming that this huge number was equal to dS(life), which you then plugged into Bunn's equation to get a much longer, and ridiculous, time. You may just as well used any other random, huge number pulled from the hind end. A statistical number for how many distinct sequences of N are possible from n subcomponents has nothing at all to do with the entropy decrease required for life to evolve! You can't just produce some random huge number, claim it means something it doesn't, then plug that into someone's equation to get a result you like. Your probability calculation in post 67 is meaningless for Bunn's argument, and can't be used as you tried to do it.

_______________
* I didn't try to run through your equation N! / (n1!, n2!, n3!, ni! ...) because it doesn't match with your comments below it that N=100, n=5, and i=20. This is because there is not just one n=5, but several n's (ie. n1, n2, n3, ...). Since i=20 there should be 20 values for n, so the only way to get an actual number is to assume that all the n's are equal to 5. Plus, you have commas between each n1, n2, .. rather than multiplies so it isn't actually something that produces a number as you've written it (if you multiply the n's you get the number of sequences as 100! / (20 * 5!) ... this does produce a number which is 9.332622 x 10^157 / 2400 = 3.9 x 10^154, which is very different from your value of 1.28 x 10^115 but since this number has no relation to dS(life) it doesn't matter).

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

You can't attend your own funeral, even if 'you' are there in the coffin all up in everyone face.
Soul something like. At least an essence, a spark.
Differentiate me from the zombie me type a deal.
Fits cause it's kinda a post mordum kinda answer anyway.
I got extra soul cause I love the blues, that street cred stuff, not that funky junky blues

[Goat]

[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

He made no comments or conclusions regarding HOW 10^43 molecules may have produced life

Then it has nothing to do with whether evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Creating order out of chaos is what increasing entropy means. If he is saying that these molecules are still in random motion. He has proven nothing. Except how many molecules he thinks there are that make up life.

It is well known that subjecting even small volumes of simple gases to UV radiation and lightning (electrical sparks) can produce amino acids in a very short period of time.

Yes, I know I took this into account in my probability calculation. That would have been the divisor.

A 20L volume is 20,000 cubic cm, so the total number of molecules in their experiment was in the ballpark of 20,000 * 2.2 x 10^19 = 4.4 x 10^23. This is 20 orders of magnitude less than Bunn's number of 10^43.

Does not make a difference. I used 100 as my dividen. 4.4 x 10^23 simply give an infinite amount of time.

Good luck with your number calculating.

And, how does that mean anything at all. One factor you are not taking into account is that chemistry is not random. There are properties of atoms that determine there interaction with each other, and therefore it's not 'random'. Without taking that into account, and the conditions, your number is merely pulling numbers out of the air, and making claims about it. Since you are not taking the physical properties of the atoms, and the way that atoms interact to form molecules into account, your calculations are not valid.

[Aetixintro]

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.

For good reasons, I support the 3. option. I also support the classic version of Dualism, without making further assumptions on God and connection to this Universe or more Universes than merely ours.

The human being has a soul because:
1. The existing telepathy is a most strong indication that the soul exists in all of us (Hell and Heaven reality). To deny telepathy is to suffer an upshot from the public in near future or so. Global communion (feelings) is actually now!
2. Psychic Detectives as series on TV through the many years where truth stands best, USA!
3. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings. That if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then souls "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that souls exist also by this notion.
4. The Van Lommel Studies. That Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, souls "more" yet another time. (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)
5. Other accounts of NDEs and OBEs, including reincarnations and "supernatural" regeneration.
6. The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality "suggest" the existence of souls as plain, nothing extraordinary about it at all.

So there you go! Denial of souls only from the uneducated!

Most of the arguments are taken from this link, Blogspot, The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... sm-is.html.

[Goat]

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.

For good reasons, I support the 3. option. I also support the classic version of Dualism, without making further assumptions on God and connection to this Universe or more Universes than merely ours.

The human being has a soul because:
1. The existing telepathy is a most strong indication that the soul exists in all of us (Hell and Heaven reality). To deny telepathy is to suffer an upshot from the public in near future or so. Global communion (feelings) is actually now!

Is this a true statement/??? The support for existing telepathy is based on a number of psuedo science sites that can not show a repeatable experiment.

2. Psychic Detectives as series on TV through the many years where truth stands best, USA!

Is a tv show that is designed for entertainment the best place you can get evidence that telepathy actually exists?

3. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings. That if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then souls "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that souls exist also by this notion.
[/quote]

`This seems to be sort of 'because I want there to be'. Does wanting it to be
show there to actually be a soul?


4. The Van Lommel Studies. That Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, souls "more" yet another time. (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)
5. Other accounts of NDEs and OBEs, including reincarnations and "supernatural" regeneration.
6. The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality "suggest" the existence of souls as plain, nothing extraordinary about it at all.

So there you go! Denial of souls only from the uneducated!

Most of the arguments are taken from this link, Blogspot, The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... sm-is.html.

[/quote]


When it comes to the whole 'near death' experience, the one thing is that it is all 'near death'. The brain does not indeed die. None of those experiment or desires show that any of these experiences are beyond the thoughts of what is happening in the brain. How can you eliminate that possibility?