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

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Photons, in scientific thinking, are demonstrably, testable models.

'Something else' can include anything imaginable, which, by definition, would include beliefs, spiritual and supernatural experiences .. It appears that's where logic just took you there, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant - a photon is currently viewed as a quantum, which is yet another well-tested scientific model.

Logic might 'point' to other ways of thinking around a problem, (like how to think of a photon), but science establishes the models for realising the 'something elses' and never deals in untestable beliefs. (I hope we might agree on that .. which would then demonstrate how science creates consensus, whereas philosophical logic also has to do other fancy pirouettes around beliefs and word salads, which is a way more difficult task to succeed in).

(Apologies for the slight diversion there, but I think its worthy of a highlight footnote post designation?)

I used the term "something else" because I can't remember the actual name for it. That's all. I wasn't suggesting something other worldly or spiritual or supernatural or anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It means that people can experience things that they think come from some spiritual cause, when the thing they experienced did not actually come from a spiritual cause.
Which doesn't mean that is always the case.
You can't discount someone's experience just because you haven't had that experience.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not asking for a formula. I'm asking how one would distinguish between something that transcends the "human psyche or natural explanations" versus things that do not.

If you don't have a way to distinguish between them, how would know which is which? And if don't know which is which, why should we attribute them to anything beyond the human psyche?
Again you are looking for a formula, so you can put spiritual things in a scientific box.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No, spiritual experiences transcend the human psyche or natural explanations.
I have had experiences that appear indistinguishable from what others have described as spiritual experiences. Since they appear to be indistinguishable it seems reasonable to think that they are, in all essential elements, identical. Yet there are perfectly natural explanations for these. That there are natural explanations does not, in my view, diminish their impact, or value.

And, for the record, what does "transcend the human psyche" actually mean?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The brain may be involved but the soul is also. I have no idea what your last sentence means.
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.
That's a good point; 'spiritual' is one of those words with multiple meanings, the main two being, firstly, 'relating to deep feelings and beliefs' or 'relating to the inner character of a person', and secondly, 'relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit', or 'relating to sacred matters', or 'concerned with religious values, supernatural beings, or phenomena' (from Cambridge English & Merriam Webster dictionaries respectively).

I have had spiritual experiences of the first kind, and I can understand how people might believe that there is some supernatural component to such experiences. But, as previously mentioned, people can have life-changing, transcendent, spiritual experiences simply by modifying the chemistry of the brain, so it seems to me that, as a practical matter, invoking the supernatural is superfluous. Of course, some believers in the supernatural will invoke the supernatural at every opportunity - it's a form of confirmation bias that reinforces their belief - "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail".

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.
Citation?

The earliest clear human markings date around 100,000 years ago, relatively recent evolutionary history, but the first decipherable symbols are much more recent than that. What is the evidence that humans were 'aware of the spiritual' in our evolutionary history?

And it's still carried forward by the ingenious cultures for instance. For myself that's important to know.
It's also interesting that it takes so many different forms, often contradictory between cultures - almost as if it's just an imaginative way of accounting for powerful emotional experiences...
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It means what it says. It's not just us talking to ourselves. The spiritual dimension is real, as real as anything you can touch.

How would you demonstrate that?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It means what it says. It's not just us talking to ourselves. The spiritual dimension is real, as real as anything you can touch.
With respect, "transcends the human psyche" is pretentious word salad. If you meant talking to something beyond oneself and beyond physical reality you could have just said so. Now please address the rest of my post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Again you are looking for a formula, so you can put spiritual things in a scientific box.

If we don't have a way to distinguish spiritual causes or events from non-spriritual ones, then we don't have a reason to invoke spiritual causes to explain anything.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Which doesn't mean that is always the case.
You can't discount someone's experience just because you haven't had that experience.
It is not "discounting" when one's beliefs are demonstrated probably be faulty.

When others have the same sort of basis for your beliefs as you do yet and yet have beliefs that are totally contradictory then that is shown to be not a rational basis for belief.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
have had experiences that appear indistinguishable from what others have described as spiritual experiences. Since they appear to be indistinguishable it seems reasonable to think that they are, in all essential elements, identical. Yet there are perfectly natural explanations for these. That there are natural explanations does not, in my view, diminish their impact, or value.
Of course it diminishes the value. Talking to yourself can't have the same value as communication with an infinite Creator.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we don't have a way to distinguish spiritual causes or events from non-spriritual ones, then we don't have a reason to invoke spiritual causes to explain anything.
Step outside your little box where everything has to be dissected and explained and you might experience reality.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Step outside your little box where everything has to be dissected and explained and you might experience reality.

What is this even supposed to mean? What "box" do you think I'm operating in?

I'm simply asking how one distinguishes spiritual causes or events from non-spiritual ones. That you seem to have so much difficulty answering this question doesn't speak to any "box" that I may or may not be in.

Rather it speaks to the fact that spiritual explanations have no demonstrability. So why even invoke them?
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not "discounting" when one's beliefs are demonstrated probably be faulty.

When others have the same sort of basis for your beliefs as you do yet and yet have beliefs that are totally contradictory then that is shown to be not a rational basis for belief.
Talk about binary thinking,!
A person can experience something you can't because of who they are. I have had spiritual experiences that would no doubt be meaningless to someone else. You can't judge it by your view of reality because you can not see through their eyes.
"Rational" is sometimes the enemy of progress. What you see as rational may be totally false.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟171,314.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I'm not asking for a formula. I'm asking how one would distinguish between something that transcends the "human psyche or natural explanations" versus things that do not.

If you don't have a way to distinguish between them, how would know which is which? And if don't know which is which, why should we attribute them to anything beyond the human psyche?
As a spiritual person i'd honestly say that you can't it's more like a deep feeling or perhaps even more like wishful thinking on my part.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is this even supposed to mean? What "box" do you think I'm operating in?

I'm simply asking how one distinguishes spiritual causes or events from non-spiritual ones. That you seem to have so much difficulty answering this question doesn't speak to any "box" that I may or may not be in.

Rather it speaks to the fact that spiritual explanations have no demonstrability. So why even invoke them?
The same one all disciples of their own logic fall into. You think something can't be real if you can't explain it scientifically.
I could have a spiritual reaction to the sunset over the ocean and you would say it's just reflected light, because that's as deep as you allow yourself to experience life.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You think something can't be real if you can't explain it scientifically.

That isn't what I said. I asked how we could we distinguish between spiritual causes and events versus non-spiritual ones.

Because if you don't have a way to do that, how could we determine whether said causes and events are truly spiritual or not?

I could have a spiritual reaction to the sunset over the ocean and you would say it's just reflected light, because that's as deep as you allow yourself to experience life.

What do you specifically mean by "spiritual reaction"?

(And you appear to projecting a strawman onto my own beliefs and perceptions. I'll ask that you refrain from doing so, thanks.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Step outside your little box where everything has to be dissected and explained and you might experience reality.
Step outside your little box where everything has to be seen as the work of a deity and left unexplained and you might experience reality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Talk about binary thinking,!
A person can experience something you can't because of who they are. I have had spiritual experiences that would no doubt be meaningless to someone else. You can't judge it by your view of reality because you can not see through their eyes.
"Rational" is sometimes the enemy of progress. What you see as rational may be totally false.
You need to drop that term since you constantly misuse it. You only believe that you have had "spiritual experiences". You have had experiences. You interpreted them as being "spiritual", though I doubt if you could even properly define the term. Others have had almost identical ones. The problem is that they imply different gods. That is why spiritual experiences are not considered to be valid evidence for a god. If they were valid there should be only one interpretation and that is not the case.
 
Upvote 0