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

[Kylie]

Alright, we have arrived at the same page.

Moves on*

But which of the two are you using as the meaning of "miracle"?

That we could eventually understand what God knows?

There used to be a time where people thought earth was flat, and we eventually learned what God knows, that the earth was round. This isn't an impossibility.

Scratches head*

That suggests that we might eventually become the equals of God, once we have learned the same things that he knows.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But you don't wish to believe. If you actually wished to believe you would seek out God with an open mind. But since your mind is not open you will see nothing, but then complain about seeing nothing. You don't see because you already decided that he isn't.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Please don't tell me what I wish for. You don't have any idea what I wish for, or even if I wish for anything.

You've been asked multiple times if you could choose to believe in a different god (let's say Thor), but you have avoided answering. Please answer the question, then explain your answer.

 

[Kylie]

But you don't wish to believe. If you actually wished to believe you would seek out God with an open mind. But since your mind is not open you will see nothing, but then complain about seeing nothing. You don't see because you already decided that he isn't.

I think you'll find most atheists don't really care about believing in God or not, they care about knowing the truth. Deciding to believe in God and then doing whatever is necessary to believe is not compatible with seeking the truth. Quite the opposite - it's deciding what you want to believe and then going to whatever lengths are required in order to justify that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheists are a tiny minority. If the data is correct, 7% of the world, so 93% believe in something. They believe because the spirit realm can be experienced.

You asked them did you? I suggest the vast majority believe mainly because it's a social and cultural norm they identify with - and they naturally explain events in their lives in terms of their belief system.

As an atheist you have effectively shut off seeing where God is at work.

Nope. From childhood, I've been keen to have magical or supernatural experiences, and open to the supposed spiritual wonders that I was told about. It just never happened; the most transcendent experiences I had were from psychedelics in my late teens. So, no, I haven't shut off anything, I simply never came to believe in any of those stories - and now I think I understand, in general terms, why.

Free will is not truly free if you restrict what someone feels. People have to be completely free to feel and experience everything.

I disagree. Free will is the capacity to make conscious uncoerced and unconstrained choices according to your personal needs, wants, desires, etc., whatever the variety and range of those needs, wants, and desires. Everyone is different in their capacities for feelings and emotions. Having a greater capacity for hate and anger doesn't give you more truly free will, nor does having a lesser capacity for hate and anger reduce your free will.

Once we choose God then he sends the Holy Spirit that grows us to be more loving and kind.

In my view, to choose in that way requires belief; I can't choose what I don't believe, and I can't choose to believe, I believe something when I'm convinced of it.

I disagree that humans reflect what we would expect from evolutionary heritage.

The vast majority recognize that there is a spirit world and most believe in a God. Even if the belief goes no further it is there, no matter what country you go to and this was in place before countries had contact with each other. When explorers landed they would find established religion.

Those types of beliefs have evolutionary explanations, and their development and refinement over time correlates well with changes in culture, social organization, and lifestyle.

Why would we go out of our way to help when it is of no gain to ourselves? For example raising money for charities, nursing the old and dying, people going overseas to help countries in Africa drill for water. How does helping the weak and infirm show evolution when evolution is about survival of the fittest?

Because that's a misunderstanding; 'survival of the fittest' is a crude slogan and widely misinterpreted. Cooperation is widespread among living things and altruism is common in social creatures - because they provide a selective advantage. Competition and cooperation are the yin & yang of evolution. For example, meerkats have common creches where all pups get the same attention from the babysitters, hive insects are the paragons of selfless cooperation; altruism and reciprocal altruism are seen beyond just apes and monkeys - many other species, even rats show altruism.

At the end the signs that were given will be made clear. Each sign that was shown but chosen to be ignored, waved away or rejected. Those who received little will likewise be judged little. God alone knows what someones heart feels. Even if that person did not directly hear, they will be judged on whatever light they did receive.

Meh. I guess it's unfair to ask you to try and step outside your worldview, even briefly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Disbelief is a choice in the factor of having an open or closed mind. When the mind is closed it won't even hear or look at any other possibility. So the first step would be an open mind to the possibility of God.

Which god? There are thousands - and why a god, why not some other superstitious or supernatural belief?

As a youth, I opened my mind to the possibility of the magical and supernatural and found nothing of substance. All I saw was fine words, wishful thinking, social pressure, and a desperate desire to believe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because God is unchanging in what he thinks.

Did He tell you that? Are all those biblical descriptions of him changing his mind mistaken?

 

[Job 33:6]

But which of the two are you using as the meaning of "miracle"?

Either or. It doesn't matter to me.

Why do you think that "something that could not have happened without divine intervention" is not miraculous? This sounds miraculous to me.

That suggests that we might eventually become the equals of God, once we have learned the same things that he knows.

I think this assumes that we would be able to comprehend everything God knows and would have the ability to investigate to maximum or infinite lengths. Learning things that God knows is clearly not impossible, as described with us learning that earth isn't flat. But could we ever know everything? I'm going to say probably not. I suspect that people would be too limited in space and time to observe what God observes. And perhaps too limited in power to investigate the deepest aspects of creation. We have a hard enough time knowing what species of fish is in the ocean right in front of us, let alone might we one day know everything about everything.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you think that "something that could not have happened without divine intervention" is not miraculous? This sounds miraculous to me.

@Kylie was specifically referring to childbirth. Follow the exchanges between you both back a few posts. You described childbirth as miraculous; Kylie is saying it is not miraculous if you mean it is "something that could not have happened without divine intervention".

Now, as to the more 'ordinary' meaning of miraculous, something that is unlikely, certainly fortuitous and generally most welcome, I recall a couple of Church of Scotland ministers placing Biblical miracles into this category. For example, the feeding of the five thousand was presented as Jesus encouraging everyone to share whatever food they had with them, but were selfishly concealing, with their neighbours. He set the ball rolling, as it were, with the two fishes and five loaves. That explanation fits well with me and delivers a much more important lesson than would a divine miracle. After all, I can never hope to perform a divine miracle, but I can strive to be less selfish and do more to help my neighbour.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Kylie was specifically referring to childbirth. Follow the exchanges between you both back a few posts. You described childbirth as miraculous; Kylie is saying it is not miraculous if you mean it is "something that could not have happened without divine intervention".

Now, as to the more 'ordinary' meaning of miraculous, something that is unlikely, certainly fortuitous and generally most welcome, I recall a couple of Church of Scotland ministers placing Biblical miracles into this category. For example, the feeding of the five thousand was presented as Jesus encouraging everyone to share whatever food they had with them, but were selfishly concealing, with their neighbours. He set the ball rolling, as it were, with the two fishes and five loaves. That explanation fits well with me and delivers a much more important lesson than would a divine miracle. After all, I can never hope to perform a divine miracle, but I can strive to be less selfish and do more to help my neighbour.

Oh I see. Well who says that child birth isn't amazing (as per Kylie's alternative definition)? Lol.

Anyway...

My thought on the feeding of the 5,000 is that Jesus is simply suggesting that belief in him fulfills people's hunger. And this could be physical hunger but it could also be spiritual. Meaning that Jesus takes care of his followers. That's kind of how I viewed it.

Not that no miracle in scripture has ever occurred, but some things are in my opinion necessary for salvation while others are not. Jesus taking one fish and pulling a second fish out of the first fish or somehow duplicating a fish thousands of times, This sounds kind of odd to me versus a more simple parable like explanation. Not that Jesus couldn't make 5,000 fish if he wanted to though.

Now I'm wondering if we are getting off track or if Kylie has some sort of clear argument in mind.

 

[Kylie]

Either or. It doesn't matter to me.

Why do you think that "something that could not have happened without divine intervention" is not miraculous? This sounds miraculous to me.

Where did I say that such an event would not count as miraculous?

 

[Job 33:6]

Where did I say that such an event would not count as miraculous?

I've since lost track of your position through your endless open ended questions (and my apologies if I've misinterpreted or misunderstood your questions as well). If you have an argument, you should make it. If you have an idea, express it. But asking me endless questions without getting to the point isn't helping whatever ideas you're trying to express.

Notice how ophiolite expands on his questions and ideas, providing substance for me to work with.

 

[Kylie]

I've since lost track of your position through your endless open ended questions (and my apologies if I've misinterpreted or misunderstood your questions as well). If you have an argument, you should make it. If you have an idea, express it. But asking me endless questions without getting to the point isn't helping whatever ideas you're trying to express.

Notice how ophiolite expands on his questions and ideas, providing substance for me to work with.

My point was that if God is bound by logic and also didn't create logic (as you calimed in posts 79 and 105), then God can't do anything truly miraculous (as in the real miracles, not like the everyday miracles like childbirth that don't need God to step in and take some action).

And if God can't do miracles, then he couldn't have created the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

I think God might be able get out of this one, where it is taken that he has a different meanings for 'true' and 'real' miracles (and he kept these special meanings out of the Bible, because he knew we wouldn't 'get' them)?

Just a thought anyway .. (I have no interest in defending this one)!

 

[Job 33:6]

My point was that if God is bound by logic and also didn't create logic (as you calimed in posts 79 and 105), then God can't do anything truly miraculous (as in the real miracles, not like the everyday miracles like childbirth that don't need God to step in and take some action).

And if God can't do miracles, then he couldn't have created the universe.

We were touching on this topic elsewhere a bit. My thought is that even miracles could be logical, but rather we consider them miracles due to a lack of familiarity with the rules of logic.

In my other post, I'll just summarize it, I noted how our school of thought on logic have evolved over time. Classical logic, aristotelian logic, stoic logic, modern logic etc.

Similar to empirical methods, we figure science and logic out as we go.

And so while I would think that modern science and logic would demonstrate that some miracles likely didn't occur, such as Jesus making 5,000 fish materialize out of thin air, I simultaneously wouldn't say that God couldn't perform miracles, given that things we consider miracles today, could be perfectly logical to a being with an eternally and fully developed logic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I recall a couple of Church of Scotland ministers placing Biblical miracles into this category. For example, the feeding of the five thousand was presented as Jesus encouraging everyone to share whatever food they had with them, but were selfishly concealing, with their neighbours. He set the ball rolling, as it were, with the two fishes and five loaves. That explanation fits well with me and delivers a much more important lesson than would a divine miracle. After all, I can never hope to perform a divine miracle, but I can strive to be less selfish and do more to help my neighbour.

I've often thought that this is a possible explanation - although it's speculative. It's the same story as 'Stone Soup'.

 

[Phred]

rather I am here to show creation.

And for some reason you are unable to do exactly that. All you can show is the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

We were touching on this topic elsewhere a bit. My thought is that even miracles could be logical, but rather we consider them miracles due to a lack of familiarity with the rules of logic.

In my other post, I'll just summarize it, I noted how our school of thought on logic have evolved over time. Classical logic, aristotelian logic, stoic logic, modern logic etc.

Similar to empirical methods, we figure science and logic out as we go.

And so while I would think that modern science and logic would demonstrate that some miracles likely didn't occur, such as Jesus making 5,000 fish materialize out of thin air, I simultaneously wouldn't say that God couldn't perform miracles, given that things we consider miracles today, could be perfectly logical to a being with an eternally and fully developed logic.

The issue here is that logic can be described in a way very similar to mathematics. So to claim that Jesus making 5000 fish out of thin air is somehow logical and we just don't understand the logic behind it seems to me to be akin to claiming that 1+1=342,578,367, and we just don't properly understand how addition works.

 

[coffee4u]

Which god? There are thousands - and why a god, why not some other superstitious or supernatural belief?

As a youth, I opened my mind to the possibility of the magical and supernatural and found nothing of substance. All I saw was fine words, wishful thinking, social pressure, and a desperate desire to believe.

There is ONE God and many demons.

 

[coffee4u]

You've been asked multiple times if you could choose to believe in a different god (let's say Thor), but you have avoided answering. Please answer the question, then explain your answer.

I was asked once by Kylie and have neither the time nor inclination to answer questions from people who don't actually want answers.

 

[coffee4u]

Did He tell you that? Are all those biblical descriptions of him changing his mind mistaken?

You realize most of those verses are affirming that God does not change his mind.

1 Samuel 15:29
Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

God does not change his mind over what sin is. He doesn't say today this act is sinful tomorrow it isn't. Adultery was sinful then and its sinful now.
God's action has been changed by the petition and prayers of righteous people. Like Abraham did when he pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah. It wasn't that God's mind was changed over the evil committed there, only he changed his action.