Creationists: How exactly did the fall of man change biological organisms?

[Job 33:6]

If we could never understand it, then how can you possibly claim that it is some sort of advanced logic? It sounds to me like you are just making stuff up at this point.

What I'm saying is that people can understand logical things, but that doesn't mean that we would somehow someday have knowledge of everything, which appears to be what you have said a few times now.

Do you mean to ask me that if we could understand logical things, then how is God's logic more advanced? Is this what you mean to ask?

us logically understanding anything, be them actions of God or not, doesn't equate to us knowing everything as God does.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Kylie

Let's review some of your questions to try to figure out what you're asking.

"Is it really your intent to suggest that God isn't required for the creation of the universe?" -Kylie

So here I don't really understand how you derived this idea from my words.

"If God is only able to do what is logically possible, then how is he capable of performing miracles?" -Kylie

Because miracles can logically occur.

"And I've covered that. It suggests that one day we could have that same understanding, and thus be equal to God." -kylie

Understanding the logic of an event doesn't make us equal to God (omniscient for example) it just means that we can understand or know some logical things. An apple falling from a tree is a logical event and we understand concepts of gravity just as God does, but it doesn't make is equals of God (though we can share knowledge of some things which God also has knowledge of).

If I had a vin diagram of things that God knows, God would be a large circle and we would be a small circle within it. Does our circle being within the larger circle make us equals to God? No.

 

[Ophiolite]

"Is it really your intent to suggest that God isn't required for the creation of the universe?" -Kylie

So here I don't really understand how you derived this idea from my words.

In your incarnation as Isaiah 41 I have found your positions somewhat bewildering. You seem, simultaneously and paradoxically, less committed to conventional evolutionary theory and more distanced from mainline Christianity than was the case before. It is as though you are using these posts to explore your beliefs. The consequence, for me at least, is to see meaning in your words that you later correct, or at least deny. Parallel to Kylie's observation, I've felt at times you were saying you don't need to be convinced that God exists to be a Christian. It's just a nice-to-have option.

If I had a vin diagram of things that God knows, God would be a large circle and we would be a small circle within it. Does our circle being within the larger circle make us equals to God? No.

If I have understood @Kylie's point is that in time we might come to understand all that God understands. Our circle would then have expanded to occupy the same space as God's. No?

 

[Job 33:6]

In your incarnation as Isaiah 41 I have found your positions somewhat bewildering. You seem, simultaneously and paradoxically, less committed to conventional evolutionary theory and more distanced from mainline Christianity than was the case before. It is as though you are using these posts to explore your beliefs. The consequence, for me at least, is to see meaning in your words that you later correct, or at least deny. Parallel to Kylie's observation, I've felt at times you were saying you don't need to be convinced that God exists to be a Christian. It's just a nice-to-have option.

If I have understood @Kylie's point is that in time we might come to understand all that God understands. Our circle would then have expanded to occupy the same space as God's. No?

I think that if we kept increasing in our understanding of existence, our circle would get bigger and bigger and bigger. I don't think this means that we would ever get to a maximum sized circle. There are a couple reasons for that. In one hand, God understands everything. As mentioned before, we hardly know what fish are in the sea. To truly "equal" God, we would have to be space faring, we would have to overturn every stone, experience and be aware of and knowledgeable of every aspect of existence.

We would have to know every logical outcome for everything that could ever happen, or will ever happen in the future or did ever happen in the past. And even what's happening now.

Then even further, we would have to understand logic of events in any non physical realm as well, such as in the heavens. And not just one or two of these events but of all events.

I think it makes sense that we could understand some logical things that God does. I just don't think this equates to the idea of us becoming equals of God. I think, especially as human beings on earth, we are too limited in space and time, too limited in resources, too limited in power. It's the same reason that we don't know all the species of fish in the sea.

Otherwise I agree with your above assessment. Though I'd change the last statement. I am convinced that God exists. But that shouldn't be confused with the idea that I have knowledge of God's existence. Though I have faith.

 

[Kylie]

What I'm saying is that people can understand logical things, but that doesn't mean that we would somehow someday have knowledge of everything, which appears to be what you have said a few times now.

Do you mean to ask me that if we could understand logical things, then how is God's logic more advanced? Is this what you mean to ask?

us logically understanding anything, be them actions of God or not, doesn't equate to us knowing everything as God does.

That sounds like pure speculation on your part. And if God's logic is so different to our logic that we could never understand it, why call it logic at all? It seems to me that you are calling it logic, despite the fact that it is nothing like our logic, just so you can say God is logical. Ultimately, since you have changed the meaning of the word so much, your claims have become utterly meaningless.

 

[Kylie]

@Kylie

Let's review some of your questions to try to figure out what you're asking.

"Is it really your intent to suggest that God isn't required for the creation of the universe?" -Kylie

So here I don't really understand how you derived this idea from my words.

"If God is only able to do what is logically possible, then how is he capable of performing miracles?" -Kylie

Because miracles can logically occur.

"And I've covered that. It suggests that one day we could have that same understanding, and thus be equal to God." -kylie

Understanding the logic of an event doesn't make us equal to God (omniscient for example) it just means that we can understand or know some logical things. An apple falling from a tree is a logical event and we understand concepts of gravity just as God does, but it doesn't make is equals of God (though we can share knowledge of some things which God also has knowledge of).

If I had a vin diagram of things that God knows, God would be a large circle and we would be a small circle within it. Does our circle being within the larger circle make us equals to God? No.

Well, for a start, if we're going to have a discussion about logic, you need to stop with this idea that logic for God is different to logic for us. Without a common frame of reference, we can't have a discussion.

(Also, some would define a miracle as something that defies all laws of logic.)

 

[Kylie]

If I have understood @Kylie's point is that in time we might come to understand all that God understands. Our circle would then have expanded to occupy the same space as God's. No?

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

 

[dlamberth]

Quite - and they need a body and brain to act on and - most important - the stimulus of the target of the emotion...

And the consciousnesses of said feelings.

 

[Job 33:6]

That sounds like pure speculation on your part. And if God's logic is so different to our logic that we could never understand it, why call it logic at all? It seems to me that you are calling it logic, despite the fact that it is nothing like our logic, just so you can say God is logical. Ultimately, since you have changed the meaning of the word so much, your claims have become utterly meaningless.

Who said that we could never understand it? Me saying that we may not know or ever learn everything about everything is different than saying that we couldn't learn and understand some things within the universe.

I can learn logic behind how gravity works, but this doesn't mean that I am now omnipotent and equal to God in my understanding of everything in existence.

You use the word "equal" to God.

A 5th grader could be equal to a PhD in being aware that there are 26 letters in the alphabet. But they're not necessarily equal in what they know in full.

 

[Phred]

So? They all believe in a supreme Being. You're just nitpicking. They all see evidence for God existing.

They do? You've spoken to them all? I don't think those are the numbers of people who believe in God. Those are numbers of people who are not Atheists. They are Catholics or Muslims or whatever... They were simply born into a family that took them to church and it's all they know.

Try questioning when the penalty is an acid bath.

There's a reason most atheists come from advanced countries. We don't kill them.

And again... it doesn't matter how many people believe something it doesn't make it true. At one time the vast majority of people would have said they believed in Zeus. Did that make him real?

Your continued harping on this fallacy is getting silly.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, for a start, if we're going to have a discussion about logic, you need to stop with this idea that logic for God is different to logic for us. Without a common frame of reference, we can't have a discussion.

(Also, some would define a miracle as something that defies all laws of logic.)

The logic of humanity much like science has developed with time. Our logic today is not the same as it was even just a thousand years ago, let alone would it be the same for people a thousand years from today. Because as we learn more and more about the universe, we are able to understand more and more concepts in logical ways.

Example:
Aristotle Was Wrong—Very Wrong—But People Still Love Him

It's not that people of today have different logic in the sense of the framework of what logic is. But rather we have different logic in that we learn more about existence and thus are able to expand on concepts where things that once would have sounded illogical, now are considered logical.

Someone didn't just wake up in the morning back in Greek times and devise all laws of logic in a couple hours. It's an ongoing developing system over time. And we can't possibly develop laws of logic around concepts that we aren't aware of, just as Aristotle won't develop concepts of logic around gravitation for example. If Aristotle lived eternally and experienced everything, he could have incorporated these concepts of friction and gravity. But being limited in space and time, he never knew them.

When we think about the quantum world, there are things that when discovered we thought well they seem illogical. Is a subatomic particle over here or over there or in both places or in neither places or is it in some other place of superposition?

As we discover new things we have to you update our understanding of what is logical in the universe.

And I only post these links in videos and ideas just to point out that ideas and logic develop with time as people increase in knowledge.

Whereas God would be maximally knowledgeable about everything and this would be of a future form of logic.

 

[Ophiolite]

And we can't possibly develop laws of logic around concepts that we aren't aware of, just as Aristotle won't develop concepts of logic around gravitation for example.

Now I am totally bemused. This may well be a reflection of my profound ignorance of logic. So, have we ever developed any logic, any aspect of logic around gravitation? Have we ever developed any logic around any physical "thing"? I've perceived logic as akin to mathematics, being an abstract concept that can be used to describe/analyse reality, while being separate from it. Are you telling me I am mistaken?

 

[renniks]

They do? You've spoken to them all? I don't think those are the numbers of people who believe in God. Those are numbers of people who are not Atheists. They are Catholics or Muslims or whatever... They were simply born into a family that took them to church and it's all they know.

Try questioning when the penalty is an acid bath.

There's a reason most atheists come from advanced countries. We don't kill them.

And again... it doesn't matter how many people believe something it doesn't make it true. At one time the vast majority of people would have said they believed in Zeus. Did that make him real?

Your continued harping on this fallacy is getting silly.

It amazes me how hostile atheists are to the fact that most people have some kind of faith. It's almost as if you are defending your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It amazes me how hostile atheists are to the fact that most people have some kind of faith. It's almost as if you are defending your religion.

Rational people realize that faith is not a pathway to the truth.

 

[renniks]

Quite - and they need a body and brain to act on and - most important - the stimulus of the target of the emotion...

Love isn't just an emotion.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now I am totally bemused. This may well be a reflection of my profound ignorance of logic. So, have we ever developed any logic, any aspect of logic around gravitation? Have we ever developed any logic around any physical "thing"? I've perceived logic as akin to mathematics, being an abstract concept that can be used to describe/analyse reality, while being separate from it. Are you telling me I am mistaken?

I would think that the premises that we think of, that we use to create logical arguments are dependent upon physical things. Even when we think about things like numbers we are imagining objects, so for example with the number two we only conjure the number two after we have already viewed two separate objects in real life. So in this sense, as we discover more, our arguments change and we are able to conclude the logical consistency of things that historically we would have no awareness of.

Let me know what you think here.

I think that my quantum physics example makes sense of this in that logically we might be confused about the idea of a photon being a particle and a wave at the same time. Or in multiple places at once. Or we might have logical arguments that fail when discussing the speed of light which is unchanging despite the motion of its source.

It's only after we come to learn about these concepts that we can restructure the premises of our logical arguments around them to make sense of them.

Otherwise we are just left with concepts that historically would have made no sense or would have seemed illogical.

 

[renniks]

Rational people realize that faith is not a pathway to the truth.

Actually just the opposite. Truth is not a mental state. It's not deciphered by only reason. Until you let go of your truth you never find the real truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually just the opposite. Truth is not a mental state. It's not deciphered by only reason. Until you let go of your truth you never find the real truth.

This is incorrect. As you yourself pointed out most religions have an element of faith. That means faith can lead you to be a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. In most cases one merely maintains the "faith" that one was born into. If faith was a pathway to the truth there would be a definite trend and that is totally missing from the picture. In other words, your own post refutes your claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would think that the premises that we think of, that we use to create logical arguments are dependent upon physical things. Even when we think about things like numbers we are imagining objects, so for example with the number two we only conjure the number two after we have already viewed two separate objects in real life. So in this sense, as we discover more, our arguments change and we are able to conclude the logical consistency of things that historically we would have no awareness of.

Let me know what you think here.

There is a world of difference between counting objects, perhaps imagining those objects for convenience as much as anything else, and developing our logic from something as complex and nuanced as gravitation.

Your response suggests you are not sure which of us is correct. You have not responded as I would expect someone who understands the origin and character of logic to respond. I would expect such a person to skewer my incompetence on the lance of irresistible logic. That you did not suggests the terrifying possibility I might know more about logic than you.

 

[Phred]

It amazes me how hostile atheists are to the fact that most people have some kind of faith. It's almost as if you are defending your religion.

Have faith. Enjoy it. Jump up and down and have parades.

Just don't be trying to tell me that because others believe it makes it more valid.