- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
No, spiritual experiences transcend the human psyche or natural explanations.
How would one determine and/or demonstrate that?
Upvote
0
No, spiritual experiences transcend the human psyche or natural explanations.
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.
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.
And as I (and others) have said, this is entirely speculation.
And your idea apparently has God fiddling with the minutia of when subatomic particles decay.
Finally, if you are going to get around things like the flood by saying that maybe it didn't happen, are we to assume you hold the same answer for how God created the universe?
Then if God uses the same logic we use, what is stopping us from using logic the same way God does? Can you explain how creating 5000 fish from nothing is logically possible?
You said earlier you aren't invoking a different type of God-logic. But it sure seems like you're invoking a different way of using logic for God to use to accomplish the same thing.
speculation? Sure.
What's interesting about this idea though is that subatomic particles make up everything in our known physical universe. I wouldn't consider this "minutia" at all. The motion of subatomic particles and their unpredictability, not just in decay, but in general, permeates every facet of the fabric of our physical reality. Radioactive decay is just a simple example I use because it's something we all understand. My lightening bolt example is the same case. I guess someone could say that God controlling a lightening bolt through the minutia activities of subatomic particles is meaningless. But I would disagree.
For you last question, I think it's fair for me to say that I don't know if God did or did not create the universe, though I believe God did.
But it's still speculation on your part without a shred of evidence, isn't it?
And do you think he did the flood as well, because you seemed to be suggesting you don't think he did.
Its kind of amusing to see that the scientific method has now been invoked here. The reason for that is related to the assumed 'truth' of posits, in logic. The only way known for checking that 'truth', is to test those posits. However the truth science is talking about there, isn't the same 'truth' invoked in the so-called Laws of Thought .. or the 'word of God' (or the Bible's) 'Truth'.But it's still speculation on your part without a shred of evidence, isn't it?
Begging the question renders an argument invalid. There are no scientific proofs, only provisional conclusions supported by evidence.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.
Oh, right (assuming that comma isn't accidental) - so if the human psyche is not actually having these experiences, they don't require natural explanations and we needn't discuss them further. Presumably what humans report as having 'spiritual experiences' are in fact non-spiritual experiencesNo, spiritual experiences transcend the human psyche or natural explanations.
Breaking news - the best model to date is a wave that looks like a particle when observed. No logical violation.Prima facie, how a photon can both be, and not be, a particle, (or a wave), violates the first posit in logic.
Projection. My beliefs are reality based.You keep dreaming.
Which is why I used the term 'Prima Facie'.Breaking news - the best model to date is a wave that looks like a particle when observed. No logical violation.
The brain may be involved but the soul is also. I have no idea what your last sentence means.Oh, right (assuming that comma isn't accidental) - so if the human psyche is not actually having these experiences, they don't require natural explanations and we needn't discuss them further. Presumably what humans report as having 'spiritual experiences' are in fact non-spiritual experiences
Lol, not everything has to be a formula.
Its kind of amusing to see that the scientific method has now been invoked here. The reason for that is related to the assumed 'truth' of posits, in logic. The only way known for checking that 'truth', is to test those posits. However the truth science is talking about there, isn't the same 'truth' invoked in the so-called Laws of Thought .. or the 'word of God' (or the Bible's) 'Truth'.
Prima facie, how a photon can both be, and not be, a particle, (or a wave), violates the first posit in logic.
When it comes to "spiritual experiences", I'm wondering if the same ideas are being discussed here. Or maybe we're talking pass each other? I don't know. Human Beings have been aware of the spiritual for ever it seems. So much so that spiritual awareness is part of our evolutionary history as Human Beings. And it's still carried forward by the ingenious cultures for instance. For myself that's important to know.Presumably what humans report as having 'spiritual experiences' are in fact non-spiritual experiences
Photons, in scientific thinking, are demonstrably, testable models.Of course, the answer doesn't violate logic at all. A photon is not a particle, and it is not a wave. It is something else that sometimes displays particle-like behaviour and at other times displays wave-like behaviour.