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

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Nobody here is being hostile to people having faith. What is being disputed is that all people of faith believe in God.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

I think that to specifically answer your question, I would say yes we have developed some concepts and logic around the theory of gravity. We certainly can develop logical premises and arguments around the theory of gravity.
1. Earth's Gravity pulls all objects within it's gravitational field toward its center of mass at 9.8m/s^2.
2. A meteor exists within Earth's gravitational pull.
3. It logically follows that the meteor therefore plummets toward the earth at 9.8m/s^2. And so it is.

Is this not development of logic based on observations?

Or it doesn't have to be a meteor It could be any object that happens to be in the sky.

And we could add extra premises relating to their not being wind or friction with the atmosphere.

But the point is that the premises are constructed upon our understanding of the universe which is ever unfolding.

Things that seem illogical today maybe logical in the future if we were to discover things that would allow us to construct our premises in more expansive ways.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think the specifically answer your question, I would say yes we have developed some concepts and logic around the theory of gravity. We certainly can develop logical premises and arguments around the theory of gravity.
1. Earth's Gravity pulls all objects within it's gravitational field toward its center of mass at 9.8m/s^2.
2. A meteor exists within Earth's gravitational pull.
3. It logically follows that the meteor therefore plummets toward the earth at 9.8m/s^2. And so it is.

Is this not development of logic based on observations?

No. Not in any way. That is the application of logic, not the derivation of logic. (Actually it is a rather flawed use of logic, since a meteor existing within the Earth's gravitation pull will have its path altered, but not so that it necessarily falls to Earth.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And the consciousnesses of said feelings.

Yes - that's a given - love is an emotion we consciously experience, i.e. there is 'something it is like' to be in love.

 

[renniks]

Nobody here is being hostile to people having faith. What is being disputed is that all people of faith believe in God.

Well that's pretty easy to check out. All the major religions do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Love isn't just an emotion.

But whatever else you feel it is, it is an emotion.

So what else do you have in mind for love, beyond emotion?

 

[renniks]

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.

That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.

 

[renniks]

But whatever else you feel it is, it is an emotion.

So what else do you have in mind for love, beyond emotion?

Is it? Emotions come and go. Love is a choice that will result in emotion, not emotion itself.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. Not in any way. That is the application of logic, not the derivation of logic. (Actually it is a rather flawed use of logic, since a meteor existing within the Earth's gravitation pull will have its path altered, but not so that it necessarily falls to Earth.)

If this is the case then I wouldn't say that God's derivation of logic is different than our own, but rather only God's application of logic would be. Because God would have vastly more knowledge and awareness than we do and thus would be able to apply premises that we are yet to know.

Thank you for helping me with these words.

@Ophiolite

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.

 

[pitabread]

That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth.

What if the actual truth isn't Christianity? What then?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is it? Emotions come and go. Love is a choice that will result in emotion, not emotion itself.

Right - it seems that you have your own definition. The common definitions all describe it as an emotion or strong feeling, and where they elaborate, suggest that it is, like most emotions, characteristically involuntary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OTOH, one could say that it is an involuntary choice by the whole person... but then you'd have to say that you choose to like or dislike things that taste nice or nasty, respectively, which isn't very helpful.

 

[Phred]

That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.

And yet you use those same people as evidence that God exists. How is it that they can be absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time?

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. They can't just have accepted something they were told.

Do you even know what you're saying?

 

[dlamberth]

But whatever else you feel it is, it is an emotion.

So what else do you have in mind for love, beyond emotion?

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.

 

[dlamberth]

What if the actual truth isn't Christianity? What then?

I think that a Medieval Christian mystic, Marguerite Porete, answered your question pretty directly when she wrote that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church she wrote "preaches" Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church she wrote "preaches" rules, laws and order. It's my belief that Christianity has become the Little Holy Church.

As a final note, Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church.

 

[Kylie]

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 was quite clearly talking about knowing the same kind of "logic" that you claim God has.

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.

But we are not in control of gravity. Are you suggesting that there are some things that God is not in control of? If not, then your analogy is flawed.

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.

But that 5 year old can grow and become a PhD, can't they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.

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

 

[Kylie]

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.

Do you think there will ever be a logical system developed that shows that things we believe to be logically impossible today are actually possible from a logical point of view? For example, today we believe it is logically impossible for a number to be both even and odd at the same time. Do you think one day we'll find a system of logic that says numbers can be even and odd simultaneously?

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?

So? That didn't invalidate the logic we were using before. We just found better information about how logic works in one particular case.

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.

Speculation. On what basis do you conclude that knowing everything requires a new form of logic.

Also, do you think that one day we could find a logical solution to the liar paradox?

 

[tas8831]

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

 

[Job 33:6]

But that 5 year old can grow and become a PhD, can't they?

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

So? That didn't invalidate the logic we were using before. We just found better information about how logic works in one particular case.

Speculation. On what basis do you conclude that knowing everything requires a new form of logic.

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.