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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Love is one of those things that is more than an emotion. Love has a way of bringing out the better part of ourselves. I've read, and believe, that Love effects Human Beings more than any other creatures here on the planet. The first signs that Human Beings were becoming civilized was in their caring for those who were hurt with things like broken legs and such. In the wild broken legs and arms is a death sentence. Caring for others is an act of Love.

I know I get on the Mystic bandwagon, sorry I can't help myself. But for the Mystics, it's through the venue of Love that unity with Source is experienced. William Johnston in "The Inner Eye of Love" put it this way: "The Mystic rides Love like an arrow to the Heart of God."

The Christian Medieval beguine women mystics rode Love in that same sorts of way. These mystics called their experience of mystical love as Lady Love or Minne.

The Sufies have "ishq allah mabud lillah" which is translated as "God is Love, Lover and Beloved". They internalize that awareness of the Divine, and ride it like an arrow to the Heart of God.

I could go on and on with all sorts of examples.

It's an emotion that causes behavioural changes, I get that; and I get that it is used in a variety of ways, particularly to describe altruism. Love engenders altruism, but altruism is more commonly the result of empathy and compassion.

But altruism is not uncommon 'in the wild'. Many creatures will make an effort to help others (sometimes of other species) at a cost to themselves. This has been clearly demonstrated under scientific conditions with rats.

Casual hyperbolic use of 'love', such as 'love for your fellow man', or 'love of a Big Mac' is not generally referring to the intense emotion, any more than calling critics 'haters', really refers to the emotion of hate.

But language changes and blurs meanings. Maybe we'll soon need a new word to distinguish between 'true' love and love of a beer...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.

All experience is ultimately mental. Experiences are real, but we can be wrong in our interpretations of them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let me know if you think this is odd at all.

I would think that a quantum physicist that knows how to construct logical arguments could apply logic more effectively or appropriately with respect to quantum physics than perhaps someone who knows how to construct logical arguments who isn't a quantum physicist, not because the two people create logical arguments in different ways, but rather because their premises would presumably be constructed based on what they know about the topic of discussion. Whereas the non-physicist would be more prone to errors due to a lack of awareness.

But if both of these people created their logical arguments completely independent of one another, the non-physicist wouldn't necessarily know if they had made errors if they didn't have the information necessary to be aware of their shortcomings.

Example:
A particle is fired out of a machine, the photon passes through two slits at the same time, rather than one slit.

A logical premise is constructed for the photon in which we conclude that the photon functions as a wave.

With that in mind, a further conclusion is made in which the same photon would function as a wave when measured passing through the slit.

But alas, the logical conclusion doesn't hold true, as the photon then acts as a particle and only passes through one slit when observed.

Hence the creation of quantum logic.

But would someone unaware of quantum mechanics ever intuitively conclude realities of quantum logic? No. Because they haven't experienced it and don't know what they don't know.

I think you are confusing logic with physics. An argument can be logically valid even if the premises are false, as long as the conclusion follows from the premises.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are confusing logic with physics. An argument can be logically valid even if the premises are false, as long as the conclusion follows from the premises.

If that were the case then wouldn't the conclusion be false?

 

[Job 33:6]

If that were the case then wouldn't the conclusion be false?

The goal here is to explain how God could conduct divine intervention and miracles through truthful logical processes.

And not only that but to describe how people who have a limited understanding of science would thereby be led to develop incomplete or false premises which would thereby lead them to false conclusions about the feasibility of divine intervention in a logical way.

But hypothetically if those people had full awareness of everything, then their premises would be perfect and in that perfection these people would understand the logical consistency of the works of God.

But it should be noted that It may not be feasible for people to actually achieve full awareness of everything (The universe is a vast place).

 

[Phred]

Therefore, the window is open for divine explanation and intervention.

Well then. All we need is evidence that there is such a thing and not just wishful thinking on the part of a whole bunch of people.

The "window" is only open if God exists. So far nobody has managed to show any evidence of this beyond "we believe it."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If that were the case then wouldn't the conclusion be false?

Yes, of course. The argument would be logically valid, but not sound. A sound argument is an argument that is valid, and all of its premises are true, so its conclusion is true. The logic is the same in both.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The goal here is to explain how God could conduct divine intervention and miracles through truthful logical processes.

And not only that but to describe how people who have a limited understanding of science would thereby be led to develop incomplete or false premises which would thereby lead them to false conclusions about the feasibility of divine intervention in a logical way.

But hypothetically if those people had full awareness of everything, then their premises would be perfect and in that perfection these people would understand the logical consistency of the works of God.

But it should be noted that It may not be feasible for people to actually achieve full awareness of everything (The universe is a vast place).

That begs the question by presupposing God.

 

[Job 33:6]

That begs the question by presupposing God.

In a world where belief in God is faith based, wouldn't begging the question have to be necessary?

Every faith based idea that mankind has ever had before establishing scientific proof for said idea, began with begging the question.

 

[Kylie]

So... 16 pages in and I'm guessing that no creationists actually offered any kind of mechanism beyond 'God did it'?

Not as far as I can tell.

 

[Kylie]

Hypothetically if the PHD revealed the information to the child, perhaps they could understand what was revealed, but if we consider that God would know everything about everything, I couldn't see mankind feasibly ever getting to a position of equality.

For the reasons noted above. We, even in a position of dominating the earth, don't even know of countless species of fish that exist within our oceans, let alone would we ever become fully knowledgeable of the ultimate sea, the universe.

Then even beyond the universe as well. We don't really know what dimensions may or may not exist out there in which we couldn't even enter or see.

But that's not to say that God couldn't reveal "some" things to us.

And once again this has nothing at all to do with the question that I asked.

I asked if God can do things that are logically impossible.

You answered by saying that God can't do things that are logically impossible, but that it's a different kind of logic to our logic, thus giving you an easy out to claim God can do whatever you think he should be able to do while at the same time letting you say God can't do things that you think he shouldn't be able to do.

In short, you've changed the rules so you can have it however you want. And that's ultimately a completely meaningless answer.

 

[Kylie]

I think that these two points get to the crux of what I've been at least trying to express, and my recent commentary with ophiolite I would say helps here.

You said "We found better information about how logic works".

And that's what I'm saying. As ophiolite assisted with, it's the application of logic and the development of logical premises that has improved with time. Meaning that over time we are able to construct logical premises that relate to topics that historically we could not have even fathomed.

Aristotle couldn't even fathom the concept of gravitational force, and thus his logic only occurred in a limited sphere of understanding. Some dare to call his logic false. But while it's not necessarily false it's just limited in scope.

If you told him that particles could be in multiple places at once, he would probably say that you were crazy. But if you pick them up and put them in the 21st century and taught them about quantum mechanics, then all of a sudden this logical conclusion that an object could be a multiple places at once now make sense.

And thus whatever logical arguments existed relating to this topic would be transformed.

And so it's not that a new form of logic is needed but rather it's information necessary to construct the premises that are needed to even understand how to apply the logic.

To be able to apply logic in its perfect form where all premises are true and you know of all logical premises of every possible argument, you would need knowledge of everything.

And so when we look at things like questions of why radioactive elements decay and emit particles at times that we can't predict and in directions that we can't predict, and we aren't really sure why a particle is emitted at one moment versus another, I would say that this is a lack of knowledge of everything.

And that lack of knowledge of everything (at least pertaining to the functions of subatomic particles) demonstrates an inability for us to formulate all possible logical explanations for it.

Therefore, the window is open for divine explanation and intervention.

You seem to think that developing a greater understanding of things is equivalent to throwing that understanding away and starting fresh with a whole new understanding.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[Job 33:6]

And once again this has nothing at all to do with the question that I asked.

I asked if God can do things that are logically impossible.

You answered by saying that God can't do things that are logically impossible, but that it's a different kind of logic to our logic, thus giving you an easy out to claim God can do whatever you think he should be able to do while at the same time letting you say God can't do things that you think he shouldn't be able to do.

In short, you've changed the rules so you can have it however you want. And that's ultimately a completely meaningless answer.

I clarified on my thoughts above. You're welcome to address those. Now it just sounds like you're hitting a straw-man.

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

 

[Kylie]

I clarified on my thoughts above. You're welcome to address those. Now it just sounds like you're hitting a straw-man.

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

Okay then.

If God is bound by the same logic that binds us, how can he do things that are logically impossible, such as making 5000 fish appear from nothing?

 

[Job 33:6]

You seem to think that developing a greater understanding of things is equivalent to throwing that understanding away and starting fresh with a whole new understanding.

It doesn't work like that.

Never said that at all.

What I'm saying is that, if the improvements to logic haven't been made, people wouldn't even know what questions to ask to develop the necessary premises to understand the works of God.

It's not to say that we have to have completely thrown out past works, but rather our current works aren't in a position to understand the ultimate truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay then.

If God is bound by the same logic that binds us, how can he do things that are logically impossible, such as making 5000 fish appear from nothing?

We already covered this too. I'm not a biblical literalist. This is like asking me if God is bound by logic, how could he cause a global flood? But of course many Christians aren't global flood advocates.

My proposition is that God could act and divinely intervene in the universe and in our lives actively, via logical ways. And I gave examples above in which God might operate and manipulate the activity of subatomic particles.

A person mutates and what do they assume? Maybe they ate something weird, maybe some random photon from the Sun altered their DNA, maybe It was just a random copying error.

But who's to say that in what people currently consider random or unpredictable, maybe God is operating.

When we think about radioactive we get, we can't see why a particle decays when it does. So what if God were to take a subatomic particle and manipulate the outcome of an event? We might look at it and say we're just random. We really wouldn't even know.

But these activities And this intervention, would occur in ways that we consider logical. We don't look at radioactive decay and come to the conclusion that there's something illogical about it.

 

[renniks]

Then you plop down that these same people. 93% of the population of earth as you've told me. Have to have experienced something for it to be real.

I never said they are all correct in their beliefs, so I don't see what your beef is. In many cases they probably only have a glimpse of truth. Most religions contain some glimmering of truth, but not the person who is all Truth.

 

[renniks]

Sorry but you "faith" is simply not a pathway to the truth. You already admitted as much.

You keep dreaming.

 

[Phred]

I never said they are all correct in their beliefs, so I don't see what your beef is. In many cases they probably only have a glimpse of truth. Most religions contain some glimmering of truth, but not the person who is all Truth.

Which, of course, you know.

 

[renniks]

All experience is ultimately mental. Experiences are real, but we can be wrong in our interpretations of them.

No, spiritual experiences transcend the human psyche or natural explanations.