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

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,522
9,495
✟236,483.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Of course it diminishes the value. Talking to yourself can't have the same value as communication with an infinite Creator.
But if there is no infinite Creator, or She is not the one you think they are, then you are talking to a phantasm and it has much less value than the atheist, or agnostic who is experiencing their place in the universe.

Step outside your little box where everything has to be dissected and explained and you might experience reality.
By assuming on faith that you are communicating with reality. When I have a mystic/religious/revalatory experience my communication is very much with the real. It's with an amazing universe whose evolution has led, over billions of years, to a species that can contemplate that universe and take the first tentative steps to understanding it. And, wow! I get to be a member of that species, if only for less than a blink of eternity.

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.
I admire, applaud and respect your honesty.

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.
Now you are just being offensive. I lack the insolence and the arrogance to deny that you have spiritual experiences. It strikes me as self-righteous that you fail to accord me the same respect.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
And, for the record, what does "transcend the human psyche" actually mean?
I was wondering the same thing. The reason being is that because Human Beings have been aware of the spiritual for such a long time through human history that it seems to me to be somewhat burned into the Human psyche.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
That isn't what I said. I asked how we could we distinguish between spiritual causes and events versus non-spiritual ones.
Being that spiritual experiences are not rational because they are experienced in the realm of consciousness, which isn't at all rational, what your asking for can't be do done.

Edited to add: There are indigenous cultures and even for some in the realm of mystics where absolutely nothing happens or exist that is not spiritual in nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacknife
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
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?
My bad. But only because I don't believe that evolution stops. If we take the science that Human Sapiens have been walking the Earth for 300,000 years or so, we didn't just stop evolving on that day.
That means that for at least 100,000 years, as noted, we have been evolving with an awareness of spirit. That doesn't take into account the build up of time of evolved Human spiritual awareness before that 100,000 year mark.

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...
Good point. The way of my understanding is that we Humans have a way of wanting to define the undefinable. Because that can't be done, the imagination comes into play in an attempt to do so. What happens than is that unfortunately rather than wisdom bubbling up, often dogma is born.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
My bad. But only because I don't believe that evolution stops. If we take the science that Human Sapiens have been walking the Earth for 300,000 years or so, we didn't just stop evolving on that day.
That means that for at least 100,000 years, as noted, we have been evolving with an awareness of spirit. That doesn't take into account the build up of time of evolved Human spiritual awareness before that 100,000 year mark.
Well, yes, we're still evolving, but written or symbolic evidence means it's very recent times in human evolutionary chronology.

The 100,000 years is for the earliest attributable markings; possible indications of spiritual awareness, being generous, is less than 10,000 years ago (Neolithic). So although they probably had experiences of that kind in earlier times, we can't say how they interpreted them.

Good point. The way of my understanding is that we Humans have a way of wanting to define the undefinable. Because that can't be done, the imagination comes into play in an attempt to do so. What happens than is that unfortunately rather than wisdom bubbling up, often dogma is born.
Yes; labels like 'supernatural' give an impression of arcane knowledge that 'inexplicable' doesn't. On that hook, all kinds of imaginative nonsense can be 'supported'...
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Now you are just being offensive. I lack the insolence and the arrogance to deny that you have spiritual experiences. It strikes me as self-righteous that you fail to accord me the same respect.
I like Richard Feynman's response to this kind of thing:


"I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
"

 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Being that spiritual experiences are not rational because they are experienced in the realm of consciousness, which isn't at all rational, what your asking for can't be do done.
Your answer is self-contradictory - unless you're writing unconsciously...

Consciousness may find rationality difficult, but can sustain it for short periods.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Which doesn't mean that is always the case.
You can't discount someone's experience just because you haven't had that experience.

But they experience something for which there has been shown to be a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation, why should I believe them when they claim that there was a supernatural explanation?
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?



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.)
Yeah you still aren't getting it. If you have to come up with some formula to figure out which is which, you are still appealing to your reason instead of giving the spiritual a chance. Because you will always find a way to reason any experience away if that's your goal.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Step outside your little box where everything has to be seen as the work of a deity and left explained and you might experience reality.
Everything? No, a lot of things are the work of finite individuals. But often what we see as reality is the illusion...we depend far too much on our little perceptions.
 
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
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.
You are doing exactly what I said. Interpreting my experiences through your perceptions. It's not just insulting, it's close minded.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By assuming on faith that you are communicating with reality. When I have a mystic/religious/revalatory experience my communication is very much with the real. It's with an amazing universe whose evolution has led, over billions of years, to a species that can contemplate that universe and take the first tentative steps to understanding it. And, wow! I get to be a member of that species, if only for less than a blink of eternity.
The universe has no personality. You can't communicate with what isn't alive.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,522
9,495
✟236,483.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The universe has no personality. You can't communicate with what isn't alive.
Hmm. You are missing out on something then. It seems you are excluded from a deeply moving spiritual experience. The universe communicates with me in a multiplicity of ways, whether I am gazing at the night sky from a mountaintop, contemplating the marvel of evolution, or watching a bee collect pollen from flowers in my garden. The sense of unity is simultaneously eternal and dynamic, peaceful and startling.

So far I've found communicating with the universe at large considerably more rewarding than with that aspect of it known to some as renniks. I'd like to think that will change.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You are doing exactly what I said. Interpreting my experiences through your perceptions. It's not just insulting, it's close minded.

No, I am explaining to you why your so called experiences are not valid evidence. I am not intepreting them at all. You appear to be only insulting yourself because reality disagrees with you.
 
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
Why can't it be both?
You have a burden of proof problem. If you want to claim that it is both the burden of proof is upon you. A rational person does not believe something until sufficient evidence is produced. There is no reliable evidence of the supernatural.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I am explaining to you why your so called experiences are not valid evidence. I am not intepreting them at all. You appear to be only insulting yourself because reality disagrees with you.
Only it doesn't. And how would you know if they are valid? Do you make a habit of telling people they don't see what they say they saw, or experience what they said they did? Even when you don't know what that was? Arrogant much?
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have a burden of proof problem. If you want to claim that it is both the burden of proof is upon you. A rational person does not believe something until sufficient evidence is produced. There is no reliable evidence of the supernatural.
Not everyone follows your idea of what is reliable evidence. In fact most don't.
 
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