Spirits/Entities - A question for all.

by Nemesis 67 Replies latest jw experiences

Nemesis

Rem:
Here is where your logic falls down. Complexity does not automatically imply design. In fact natural processes (such as random mutation and selection) have been known to create things that are so complex that humans don’t even know how they work! It almost seems that intelligent design cannot create things as complex as nature. It is a fact that we do not differentiate between human artifacts and natural objects through complexity, though. There are qualitative differences between the two. There is no comparison. Do you think that every snowflake has to be hand crafted and designed because it is so complex? Blind, natural processes create complex forms every second of every day.
You use the example of mutations, but they are already based on the creature in hand, you have jumped from non-life to life and then altering that life. If we don’t fully comprehend all the genetic processes in the first place and cannot produce even simple proteins then how are we to understand how a mutation has altered a subject—the lack of understanding means nothing.
As for snowflakes—they are not complex at all compared to the magnitude involved in even the most relatively simple life forms. Snowflakes are simple structures that follow very basic simple laws for crystallization of water. A snowflake, crystal, or other comparable natural objects are merely orderly, but not complex. Having order is not the same as complexity. Rows of bricks, or crystals are orderly, but a city is complex. I’m not sure how you say a vase has the mark of ‘intelligent design’, and yet a group of proteins magnitudes more complex, do not have the mark of intelligent design. Humans can make vases, therefore we assume vases did not self create over millions of years, there is no know natural process forming vases. No one has ever observed a protein forming naturally outside of life either, and they are still too complex for us to make with all our advanced technology [which would obviously not have existed in the distant past to make them either], how are proteins not a sign of intelligent design if a vase is? Which is the most likely to arrive by chance, a vase or a protein? It’s almost like saying well this Coca-cola can must have been designed by an intelligent being, but this Ferrari must have somehow made itself over many millions of years by some mysterious natural process that defied all known laws of physics and chemistry—is that really logical?
To end with—if we did evolve then there is no such thing as logic, rational reasoning, good, bad, right, wrong, moral, immoral etc. They are all delusional construct of the mind and non have any validity at all as the entire universe would be a meaningless purposeless accident. No one human, animal, or creature could claim superiority of philosophy, because all are accidents and without any purpose, meaning or design. Just like Solomon said: “All is vanity.”
Have a nice day!
rem

Nemesis,
You use the example of mutations, but they are already based on the creature in hand, you have jumped from non-life to life and then altering that life.
You keep harping on Abiogenesis and its current shortcomings for some reason. Do you understand that even if you could somehow prove Abiogenesis was completely wrong, you still have not provided any positive evidence for your pet theory of a spirit world? In fact, right now there is a lot more evidence for Abiogenesis than for spirits because scientists have at least found SOME evidence supporting it, while there is absolutely NO evidence supporting a spirit realm.
What is your definition of life? Natural Selection with random mutation works on any self-replicating system, including self-replicating molecules which we don’t necessarily consider life. DNA is not a prerequisite to life, but just happens to be the type of life we are. The first steps to life most probably were not based on modern DNA, but acted as a scaffold to finally develop the DNA system that won out and replaced the inferior species. It’s called extinction and it has happened to over 99% of all species that have ever existed on this earth. This is completely in line with what you would expect by blind, unintelligent processes with no foresight. If an intelligent designer created all of the species, then you would expect much less, if not zero extinction. Or maybe the intelligent designer is not so intelligent after all?
If we don’t fully comprehend all the genetic processes in the first place and cannot produce even simple proteins then how are we to understand how a mutation has altered a subject—the lack of understanding means nothing.
We know a lot more about mutations and proteins than we do about any supposed spirit beings. You are also presupposing genetics had a play in the first “life-forms”. Like I said before, the first life forms were likely just self-replicating molecules that we probably would not consider life (much less complex than any virus). We barely even consider a virus as a living thing. Like I suggested before, do some research on Abiogenesis and then you might be able to ask better questions.
I’m not sure how you say a vase has the mark of ‘intelligent design’, and yet a group of proteins magnitudes more complex, do not have the mark of intelligent design.
You can’t tell the difference between human-made artifacts and objects made by natural processes? Most people can. Is every living thing meticulously designed before it is born? No, it grows from natural processes. Where you say the original member of the species was specifically designed, I say it evolved from another, probably less complex organism. We see evolution all around us, so that is a point in my favor. We don’t see species springing up from nowhere, so that is a point against special creation and intelligent design. Evolution is a good theory because it fits the facts. Abiogenesis is a collection of several theories that have some evidence in their favor, but have not been proven yet. Whether Abiogenesis lives or dies is no evidence for or against the existence of spirits, though.
Humans can make vases, therefore we assume vases did not self create over millions of years, there is no know natural process forming vases. No one has ever observed a protein forming naturally outside of life either, and they are still too complex for us to make with all our advanced technology [which would obviously not have existed in the distant past to make them either], how are proteins not a sign of intelligent design if a vase is?
Since humans did not create proteins and there is no evidence of any other intelligent designer in the universe capable of designing proteins it would be illogical to just make one up. We do know of natural processes that are very powerful and that they are capable of creating extremely complex things – things much more complex than even humans can “intelligently design”. Thus, when weighing in the probability between god and natural processes creating proteins, the natural processes win because there is no evidence for a god.
1. Proteins exist and are very complex
2. God exists and is an intelligent designer <<< This has not been established yet
3. Therefore God created proteins <<< Conclusion invalid
Spot the logical error here? It’s a bit of circular reasoning to posit a god that has not been shown to exist as a reason to believe that it created complex proteins.
1. Proteins exist and are very complex
2. Natural processes exist and have been shown to create very complex things
3. Therefore Natural processes created proteins << Not necessarily true, but not logically invalid
In this example, the conclusion may or may not be sound, but there is no circular reasoning.
Which is the most likely to arrive by chance, a vase or a protein?
No one suggests that proteins appeared out of nowhere. They did not come about by chance, but by natural selection, which works on slight modifications to make complex changes over time. Life today relies on proteins to survive, but proteins like we have today did not exist with the first replicating molecules.
It’s almost like saying well this Coca-cola can must have been designed by an intelligent being, but this Ferrari must have somehow made itself over many millions of years by some mysterious natural process that defied all known laws of physics and chemistry—is that really logical?
That would not be logical, but that is not what anyone is saying. There is a distinct difference between man-made artifacts and natural objects. The sole purpose for any living organism is to reproduce and natural living things show this type of purpose in their “design” while man-made objects do not. Natural Selection works on self replicating systems and organisms, so there are natural processes that can make proteins and other organic matter, while natural processes will never create a Ferrari or a Coca-Cola can. We can trace the evolution of living things and their genetic family tree, where man-made objects come from nowhere or have borrowed traits, but are not genetically related in any way.
Since there are natural processes that are observed in laboratories that do modify living things over time, it is not against the laws of physics for natural, living objects to be molded by their environment into peculiar designs.
To end with—if we did evolve then there is no such thing as logic, rational reasoning, good, bad, right, wrong, moral, immoral etc.
Correct in the general sense, but not in the context of humans who created these concepts. For example, the Universe is amoral – it does no good or bad when events happen to build or destroy life or things. Things just happen. Humans put value on certain things and concepts, so destroying life is seen as a bad thing within our own context. As history has shown, different things are considered as good and bad as human societies evolve, thus reinforcing the evidence that such concepts are purely contextual.
They are all delusional construct of the mind and non have any validity at all as the entire universe would be a meaningless purposeless accident. No one human, animal, or creature could claim superiority of philosophy, because all are accidents and without any purpose, meaning or design. Just like Solomon said: “All is vanity.”
I don’t believe that it is a good reason to reject a truth because it makes you feel yucky inside.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Mindchild

Nemesis,
I read through this thread with interest and it appears to me that you are linking your rejection of science, epistemological tools, neurological dysfunction and competitive religious memes in favor of your current hypothesis is that these are begin real entities, perhaps from a different dimension. I’m wondering if you are really open to any theory you disfavor?
I’m not saying this to be insulting, just as a matter of fact, because most people allow their ego to run on automatic pilot and immediately bias information that is deleterious to our current paradigms. Unfortunately, this is a normal human tendency and the more emotional we find ourselves getting in terms of relating to competitive ideas, typically the more unsubstantiated our conceptual constructions are.
I suggest a more promising way to find an answer to understanding your situation is to first have a good dose of skepticism about your own theories as well as that of other theories but at the same time having the ability to really test things sufficiently to prove or discredit something. Anyone can just reject everything as being false but it is a lot more work finding out if something is true.
To your credit, you do seem to be taking some steps in trying to determine the cause and effect relationships behind your experiences, even though you have a well-developed theory of your own. However, I think you need to expand your knowledge about the neuropsychological and neurological mechanisms behind this apparent phenomenon.
Are you familiar for instance with the new research that shows that hallucinations, UFO sightings, and psychic phenomena may be caused by electrical stimulation of the brain? It is now possible in the laboratory to routinely give “normal” people hallucinations so real of angels, demons, aliens, and so forth, that they are awestruck by the reality of the experience. I also know of a neurologist who has investigated the effects of geomagnetic pulsations upon producing these experiences and has published his papers showing corelational evidence. Years ago, Dr. Wilder Penfield and Jose Delgado demonstrated how ESB (electrical stimulation of the brain) could create induced mental experiences on the operating table (ESB is done on an open brain) that transported patients through time and space providing amazing details. One example I remember reading in the published abstracts was of a adult woman who was sent back in time to an old elementary school she attended as a child. She was sitting in her desk, not as a young student, but as the adult she was. She described in detail everything around her, even counting the ceiling tiles in the room. The researchers later discovered that she got the number of tiles right!
This obviously suggests that our brains have amazing recall abilities if we can properly reactivate the synaptic patterns that led to those memories but at the same time, our consciousness distorts the “reality” to match our own perceptions. What I’m suggesting to you is that you don’t have to be mentally ill to have these experiences at all. Further, your “flavoring” of the experience would be different dependant upon your memetic interpretation you held. If you thought for instance that space aliens had repeatedly abducted you and they had implanted some kind of device in you, your experiences would distort themselves to reflect this “reality” you were seeing.
The failure to remain objective of your experiences, coupled with the rejection of truth telling tools could well keep you from ever finding any answer in the consensual reality all of us live in.
I suggest that if you want to test your belief hypothesis regarding evolution, causation, and what not, you start a new thread on the subject and see what kind of responses you get there. It appears to me that you don’t have any understanding in any depth of the subject, otherwise you would never have made many of the comments you did. Again, that is your choice to test your beliefs but the point of my reply here was to suggest that using science instead of rejecting it will get you a lot closer to where you want to be than guessing.
Kind Regards,
Skipper
Nemesis

Rem:
Do you understand that even if you could somehow prove Abiogenesis was completely wrong, you still have not provided any positive evidence for your pet theory of a spirit world?
You would also have to say the exact same thing in regard to ancient artefacts being made by “intelligent beings” (humans)
there is absolutely NO evidence supporting a spirit realm
I think you will find there are many thousands of people who have some evidence.
The first steps to life most probably were not based on modern DNA, but acted as a scaffold to finally develop the DNA system that won out and replaced the inferior species…If an intelligent designer created all of the species, then you would expect much less, if not zero extinction. Or maybe the intelligent designer is not so intelligent after all?
Except there is absolutely no proof, or evidence that a pre-DNA form exited or is even a possibility, you are now going in to the realms of fantasy. As for species—who said God made them all as separate species? Species are a man made categorization, and as for many being extinct—yes they are—but who are we to presume to know the mind of God? Are we static with our creations, or do we also move to higher and differing levels as it suits us?
Like I said before, the first life forms were likely just self-replicating molecules that we probably would not consider life
There is absolutely no evidence that these can possibly even exist let alone have evidence for them, see the quote below out of interest.
In Darwin's day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous generation—that life arose from non-living matter. It was somewhat easier to believe because the cell's structure was almost unknown. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin's popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell was a 'simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon. (Haeckel was also a notorious fraud—he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the erroneous idea that the embryo's development recapitulated (re-traced) its alleged evolutionary ancestry)
But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.
More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.
Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information to be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 10^9 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long. This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey's estimate generously presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.
NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entities—therefore it cannot explain their origin.
You can’t tell the difference between human-made artifacts and objects made by natural processes? Most people can
Come on Rem, that is a rather meaningless statement, and purely subjective, not scientific. I see the hand of a God when look at life, you see something else. We are supposed to be speaking of rational probabilities not mere opinions.
Is every living thing meticulously designed before it is born? No, it grows from natural processes.
Hummm... Yes life is “meticulously designed before it is born”; it’s in its DNA all set out. It can only “grow from a natural process” because it’s all “meticulously designed” in its DNA beforehand.
Where you say the original member of the species was specifically designed
I have never said this.
We do know of natural processes that are very powerful and that they are capable of creating extremely complex things
I see you have intentionally not given any examples of these “extremely complex things”, are they in the league of the 482 genes needed for the simplest known life form? Or even in the league of a few dozen proteins?
1. Proteins exist and are very complex
2. Natural processes exist and have been shown to create very complex things
3. Therefore Natural processes created proteins << Not necessarily true, but not logically invalid
1. Agreed
2. Not seen any yet
3. You would have to say first “Therefore Natural processes created artefacts” long before you could say they made proteins.
No one suggests that proteins appeared out of nowhere. They did not come about by chance, but by natural selection, which works on slight modifications to make complex changes over time
So exactly how does “natural selection” make proteins from basic chemicals where there is absolutely no observations, or evidence that this is remotely possible? Even amino acids are unstable and degrade within hours, how long are you thinking of—billions of years, or minutes?
...but proteins like we have today did not exist with the first replicating molecules.
Now who is jumping the gun with massive unfounded assumptions? There is absolutely zero evidence of what you have just said as a fact, let alone remotely possible.
There is a distinct difference between man-made artifacts and natural objects. The sole purpose for any living organism is to reproduce and natural living things show this type of purpose in their “design” while man-made objects do not.
You are running ahead again, a protein is not a living organism, and is no different to any other object, except in its high level of complexity. Proteins cannot just “reproduce” themselves any more than a vase or space shuttle can. If you cannot give scientific answers as to how all the proteins, DNA/RNA, and organelles came into existence for life to then come into existence then your whole foundation for further theory is flawed as it rest on a non-existent foundation.
Since there are natural processes that are observed in laboratories that do modify living things over time, it is not against the laws of physics for natural, living objects to be molded by their environment into peculiar designs.
I think you will find with all the mutations in the world—a bacterium is always going to be a bacterium, nothing new has ever been observed by mutations. After over one million fruit fly mutation experiments all that resulted were more fruit flies. How you—or anyone proposes that all life on earth came from microbes is astounding seeing as not one single new life form has ever been observed to come into existence from microbes, all you will ever see are more microbes.
As for the psychological realities, they are purely subjective and far more meaningless without a God than with one.
Mindchild

Hi Rem,
I see you got yourself involved in a discussion with a creationist. To make things a little easier for yourself and to save some time, here is a good website to go to that lists most of their arguments and some scientific answers with references. The URL is: http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html
Here are just a few examples of some of the arguments used that look strangely familiar to Nemesis reasoning: (note the bold text is the creationist view followed by the scientific response.)
Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of proteins. Proteins, however, cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Thus, genetic systems could not have started naturally. RNA sequences are capable of forming and replicating without the assistance of proteins. These RNA sequences may also catalyze protein formation. As Martin Olomucki notes:
There is nothing to contradict the notion that the primordial RNAs may have promoted the polymerization of...the amino acids...nucleic acids may, by a reaction similar to the one leading to RNA polymerization, have been able to facilitate the polymerization of amino acids by supplying a suitable catalytic center and sacrificing one phosphodiester bond to permit the formation of a peptide bond (Olomucki 1993:74-75).
There are n! (n-factorial: n x n-1 x n-2 x...x 1) ways of an enzyme or DNA strand of n parts forming prebiotically. Since the smallest proteins have at least 100 amino acids, the chance of forming a particular enzyme prebiotically is at most 1/100!, which is small enough to be disregarded. While this argument correctly demonstrates that no given protein could have come into existence all at once by pure chance, such a demonstration is irrelevant to current origin-of-life research. As Iris Fry points out, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of possible prebiotic possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196). It is also worth pointing out that enzymes with many different configurations can hae identical or similar effects, meaning that no one particular enzyme needs to be generated in order to fulfill a specific effect.
For information on specific proposals, see Fry 2000.
Even though the Earth is an open system, the second law of thermodynamics still poses an insuperable barrier to abiogenesis, since order in an open system will increase only when there is a complex system (such as a host of enzymes or a supernatural creator) to influence the reactions. An increase in order in the absence of such a complex system would be like sunshine causing loose parts in a junkyard to assemble itself into a pickup truck. Chemicals and biomolecules function much differently in the presence of energy than do pieces of scrap metal in a junkyard. Many atoms and molecules spontaneously join together to form larger molecules, especially in the presence of added energy. At high temperatures, mixtures of amino acid monomers spontaneously polymerize (into what he calls "proteinoids") and form primitive cell-like structures called protocells, fossils of which may have been found in Precambrian rock (Fox 1989). [It should be noted that Fox's claim that the sequences of amino acids in proteinoids are nonrandom is now believed to be false (Fry 2000:85-86, Wills and Bada 2000:54-55).]
Many important biochemicals including amino acids and nucleotides have been produced in experiments and found on meteoritic material. Spectroscopic data even reveals the existence of organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds; concerning these chemicals, Martin Olomucki notes that
...in many of the organic interstellar molecules we find compounds which are precursors of biological molecules: hydrogen cyanide, which can generate amino acids and nucleic bases; formaldehyde, the precursor of sugars; cyanoacetylene, an important condensation agent, etc. These molecules are able to form even under extreme conditions of temperature and high concentration of interstellar media. Apparently ubiquitous in the Universe, they must certainly have existed on the surface of the primitive Earth, as well as on other planets: traces of amino acids, which are already more complex chemicals, have been identified in lunar dust and meteorites. (Olomucki 1993:47; see also Miller 1992:17- 20).
Research has yielded a host of autocatalytic molecules, some of which present characteristics like imperfect replication (no one wants perfect replication from reproducing molecules - otherwise diversity could not be generated) and even recombination (Rebek 1994).
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is thus shown by experiment to be no barrier to the natural emergence of complex structures from simple ones. It should be noted that, in the first place, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says nothing about open systems requiring catalysis by an already complex system to become complex themselves - this is a concoction of the creationists misleadingly presented by them as an original part of the real scientific law.
Kind Regards,
Skipper
rem

Skipper,
Thanks for the link. I really didn't want this to dissolve into a creation vs. evolution thread as that is not the point of the original post. I was just trying (unsuccessfully) to show that Abiogenesis, though not proven is at least a better theory than god and that even if you could prove Abiogenesis wrong, it still does not give any evidence of god or a spirit realm. I tried to do this without getting too technical because really the techinical aspects of the discussion are irrelevant. I urge Nemesis to do some research on his own instead of simply reading Creationist websites.
Many of the things he's brought out I could tear into, but the argument just seems to become boring and pointless. I will note, though, that he seems to disregard certain words of mine such as "self-replicating molecule" (which would pre-date DNA and perhaps even RNA) and instead presume I said "simple cell" such as mycoplasma which contains DNA. I am also quite aware that proteins of themselves do not reproduce, but they are building blocks of modern reproducing organisms, where Coke cans and Ferrari's are not.
I don't think a good argument for the spirit world is:
"God must have made proteins because proteins need a god to make them."
It's circular and based upon nothing. No, Abiogenesis does not have all of the answers, but at least it's based on reality - the physical world instead of a spirit world without any evidence of existence. At least I can honestly say "I don't know" for many questions right now instead of saying "god did it."
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Valis

I always found it amusing that people believed in real demons, and the extent they would go to validate thier belief...smurfs are one example, JWs not going into churches is another, being afraid of games like Dungeons & Dragons yet another, I could go on...just like believing Dog is taking care of his creatures and there are entities leading the world to its armageddon who oppose him, which is all proven in the bible...big viscious circle if you ask me. I have too many personal demons to believe there are things I can't see through empirical eveidence, that are doing anything to anyone. Spirituality has always been a manmade construct and will always be just that. Perhaps Cowboy can loan you a pair of boots for treading through life and believing in such bullshit.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Nemesis

Rem and Mindchild:
I can see this is going to go on forever, and as you have said, and I said, this was not the original purpose of this thread, so this will be my last post, unless it's to do with the original subject matter.
I will cheekily leave you with a few “creationist” web links just to annoy you both.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-031.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm
I do feel because you have left the WT org. that you are maybe guided to all things that are the opposite of a God because they represent the antipathy of all that you have left. And no measure of evidence would ever be enough for your to go back to believe there is any intelligence out there besides us as humans.
If God were to appear [assume for minute that he does exist] and you saw him, along with a legion of angels. I’m sure within weeks you would have rationalized that it was all a hallucination, or some others non-entity explanation. The same goes for spirits, psychic phenomenon, foreseeing the future and the like. No amount of evidence would open your eyes as you are set to the agenda “there is not God”, as to you God = The Watch Tower Org. or similar, and therefore must be rejected at all costs, I may be wrong, but feel there are many who are on that agenda here.
One last point is if there were no God, then how can any of us ever judge anyone else regardless of what they do in life? All life would be a meaningless fabrication from meaningless entities that have no function or purpose. The serial killer is just as valid as the saint, neither are “good or bad” as they are just made up terminologies from pointless entities. Even to criticize the Watch Tower for it’s false doctrines, and power crazed hypocrites would be invalid as “all is vanity”. An atheist who tries to find “meaning” and “logic” is just as deluded as the one who faithfully worships and organization of men like the Watch Tower society. We are in effect all gods in our own right, and non are superior to the other, as we would all be pointless accidents in a cold futile universe. Even the humble microbe is just as much a god as self-righteous humans. If there is no God or gods, then there cannot even be “good or bad”; even to destroy the whole world would not be bad, as its all an inane accident anyway. If there is no God then all opinions and lifestyle are equally valid and equally worthless, none can ever be superior to the other.
Leaving you on that happy thought, I bid you well. Catch you later on another subject.
Kaethra

Wow Nemesis! You really think that the absence of god means an absence of good or evil? Do good and evil only exist if there is a reward or punishment in an afterlife?
Finally, how does god's existence provide purpose to human existence?
gravedancer

Do you have any Smurfs?

Spirits/Entities - A question for all.

Share this