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

[pitabread]

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

How would one determine and/or demonstrate that?

 

[Kylie]

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.

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.

 

[Kylie]

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?

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

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.

I also gave other examples related to things like mutations. What makes us human but mutations? And yet many people might consider mutations just to be random or unpredictable events as a product of things like rogue photons from the sun damaging our DNA. But if manipulated by God these subatomic activities would be no small matter. Indeed these activities could dictate the fate of the universe.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

I think you should try re reading the post I linked above. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the 5,000 fish when I've repeated several times that I'm not a biblical literalist.

And I never said that anything is stopping us from using the same logic that God does. No more is there anything stopping a 5th grader from knowing the same 26 letters of the alphabet as a PHD. The difference is that the PHD can formulate logical premises for how the universe works in ways in which a 5th grader simply wouldn't be aware of. Or to abide by the analogy, the PHD could simply use big words.

Our logic, that we've used as people throughout history, is an ongoing developmental project, where we continually can devise new logical premises and applications of logic to understand new logical truths as we grow in knowledge of the universe.

You asked what was stopping us from essentially learning the entire alphabet, and thereby becoming equals to God. To answer this, as I said before, God is omniscient. Mankind can't even name the species of fish in the ocean right in front of us. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to suggest that mankind would ever be maximally expanded through space and time (and perhaps beyond) to ever discover, in full, the knowledge of God, thereby making us equals. Currently we certainly don't have the time or resources to learn everything for the sake of being able to apply logic with absolute perfection to everything that exists.

And that's it.

 

[Kylie]

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.

But it's still speculation on your part without a shred of evidence, isn't it?

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.

And do you think he did the flood as well, because you seemed to be suggesting you don't think he did.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

Everything with God is faith-based and I'm all right with that. Belief was never about the evidence.

But I do enjoy entertaining myself with these speculative possibilities.

And personally I believe in the idea of a local flood That occurred through natural (and logical) means. Do I believe that God made this local flood happen? Yes. Is this speculation without evidence on my part? Yes it is.

 

[SelfSim]

But it's still speculation on your part without a shred of evidence, isn't it?

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Begging the question renders an argument invalid. There are no scientific proofs, only provisional conclusions supported by evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prima facie, how a photon can both be, and not be, a particle, (or a wave), violates the first posit in logic.

Breaking news - the best model to date is a wave that looks like a particle when observed. No logical violation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep dreaming.

Projection. My beliefs are reality based.

 

[SelfSim]

Breaking news - the best model to date is a wave that looks like a particle when observed. No logical violation.

Which is why I used the term 'Prima Facie'.

The scientific process investigations provided the information for allowing a wave to look like a particle when observed and not some untestable 'assumed', posited, logical truth.

 

[renniks]

How would one determine and/or demonstrate that?

Lol, not everything has to be a formula.

 

[renniks]

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

The brain may be involved but the soul is also. I have no idea what your last sentence means.

 

[pitabread]

Lol, not everything has to be a formula.

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?

 

[Kylie]

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.

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.

 

[Kylie]

The brain may be involved but the soul is also. I have no idea what your last sentence means.

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.

 

[dlamberth]

Presumably what humans report as having 'spiritual experiences' are in fact non-spiritual experiences

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

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?)