A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

I would be thankful to know whether you might also share the following:

An important upshot of the quantum description is that in the end of the day, physical reality consists in a manifold of observations, and thus there can in principle be different physical realities depending on different groups of observers.

There is the ordinary physical reality, which is characterized by repeatable patterns we can grasp by means of scientific experiments and mathematical algorithms, and master by means of technologies; it is the realm where physical events yield indelibly registered outcomes, which are the same for all observers.

But there are many other possible extraordinary realities beyond our technological capabilities, as for instance the Resurrection of Christ, Pentecost, and other miracles.

Many of these extraordinary events do not let any indelibly registered outcome in the ordinary world, as for instance Pentecost, the Transfiguration of Christ, and the Dancing Sun. We know about them on the basis of the report of trustworthy witnesses, whose behavior before and after the miracle shows that they were not a victim of hallucinations, but led a normal healthy life.

I agree with you: We know about the Trinity and that God is love through revelation by Jesus Christ.

And since the moment God makes Homo sapiens “in the image of God”, God’s Word gives light to every human coming into existence (John 1: 9).

So for instance the radical difference between human and animal life God proclaims in Genesis 9: 3-6 can be considered something God reveals to all mankind.

Indeed, Saint Paul in Athens quotes a Greek poet who had said: “We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17: 28). This expression is clearly another way to say “we are in the image of God”.

In this sense, the universal prohibition of homicide and the permission to use animals for food in Genesis 9: 3-6 can be considered an archetype of morality and law God engraves in the collective unconscious and conscious of mankind. And even the narrative of a universal judgement by God in the beginning (like the Flood in Genesis 6-9) may be an archetype common also to non-Hebrew cultures who had no notice of Genesis.

1 Like

In the context of this debate I would be glad to know your opinion about the kind of reality we should attribute to the Flood in Genesis 6-9:
Is it part of the ordinary physical reality, or should we rather consider it is a miracle?
Thanks in advance for answering.

That would depend on your definition of “physical.” You see that right there is how I distinguish the physical from the non-physical (or spiritual). Physical things are part of the mathematical space-time structure of the universe and spiritual things are not. Thus the physical is the basis of objective reality and the spiritual is a fundamentally subjective reality. The physical doesn’t care what we want or believe, but the spiritual is all about what we want and believe… it is you can say, the solipsistic portion of reality. It precisely because I cannot believe that the mathematical and objective is the sum total of reality that I believe in the spiritual at all.

SO… I would say no. There is only one physical reality and it is only the spiritual reality which can be different depending on the observers. In the Everett interpretation superposition encompasses observers and thus you get something like what you suggest. But in that case other parts of the superposition are not measurable and all observers we can talk to agree completely on what they observe as the results of measurements. The decoherence or collapse of the superposition happens in the measuring device NOT in the conscious observer!

That is why one interpretation of the mathematics of the Everett interpretation is that these only represent a superposition of possible futures and not a multiplicity of actual worlds.

I call it the spiritual aspect of reality. And it means that we do not have to look down our noses at the people around the world because they believe differently than we do and therefore must be delusional. Their spiritual reality is just as real as our own.

I am not in any debate. I am a participant in a discussion.

The concept of the world has changed to reflect our expanding awareness of the universe. The earth is only a flat table in an awareness that extends a thousand miles in every direction. There is certainly no notion of the earth as a planet. Thus a world-wide flood is just a local flood wiping out all life in the area of man’s first civilization.

I regard scripture to instruct us and edify within the faith. Miracles mainly show us the care Christ wishes to show us, but He stated many times that faith underpins such acts.

Now regarding Noah and the problems faced by his neighbors, he acted according to his faith and was saved from the flood, while all others in his world perished because they would not believe. This is the lesson, and the physical reality described in Genesis is consistent with their limited understanding of their world - the lesson from scripture however, is universal.

I apologize for the lack of sensibility.

If I understand well you mean:

A “local flood” wiping out the population of the five first City-states in Sumer (about 200,000 people) at about 3,000 BC.

Thanks for confirming that I interpret correctly your claim.

I agree that graves like that of Sungir are quite impressive. And they may certainly be considered evidence of a belief in afterlife. However, you cannot exclude that the belief of afterlife such burials reveal is sort of an animistic belief that also considers trees, totems, rocks, rivers as spiritually animated and alive.

As far as Cro-Magnon burials do not reveal sense of moral responsibility and accountability, they are not evidence that Homo sapiens did already become “mankind in the image of God”, according to Genesis 9:3-6.

Notice however that after God’s declaration in Genesis 9:3-6 any indigenous people should be considered in the image of God even if they seemingly share only animistic beliefs.

I would be thankful if you could explain more in detail what do you mean by “the lesson from scripture is universal”.

I accept the Cro-Magnon burial goods as evidence that humankind had then taken the first giant step toward considering themselves as a special creation in God’s eyes–a step that later (by ancient Jews) would lead to making a Covenant with Him. True, burial goods are not clear evidence of ‘moral responsibility and accountability’ such as you deduce from Gen 9:3-6 which contains the “Image of God” statement. But that passage also states: ““Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed” which supports an “eye for an eye” morality which has resulted in a great deal of evil in more modern times.

Although most ‘indigenous’ people did not write down their moral code, I find much of what survives is superior to what I find in Deuteronomy. Of course there are obvious exceptions, such as the Aztec sacrifice of prisoners of war, or the current treatment of one half of humankind (females) by the Koran.

Just to set the record straight, I am in total agreement with John Muir when I visit Yosemite and find that it inspires awe and worship as much as does the grandest cathedrals in Europe: Looking up at the majestic height and girth of the Grizzly Giant; standing at the brink of the Nevada or Upper Yosemite falls; peering over the edge of Half Dome at the valley almost a mile below. Yes, I do consider them ‘spiritually animated’ even though that might not be grammatically correct since they are merely trees, rocks and rivers.
Al Leo

The best and clearest explanation is:

Hebrews 11:6-7 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

There is no geological evidence of “a local flood” capable of “wiping out all life in the area of man’s first civilization” (that is, Sumer around 3000 BC).

Accordingly, I would like to propose that the “world-wide flood” you refer to is part of

Do you agree?

What??? There is evidence of many floods in that area and this strawman tactic of picking your own place and time to shoot down is hardly honest.

No. I see no reason for that. And I don’t even know what a spiritual flood would even mean.

1 Like

I apologize if my statement has given the impression of “strawman tactic”. I am sincerely trying to understand what do you mean by “a local flood wiping out all life in the area of man’s first civilization”.

So to avoid misunderstandings in coming posts I dare to ask:

  1. If not Sumer, which civilization are you referring to by “man’s first civilization”?

  2. How large was the area of this civilization where the whole population was wiped out by a local flood?

  3. Could you give a reference providing evidence for such “a local flood”?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Unknown. And possibly not even knowable by archeological investigation.

Unknown. But not the whole planet, that is for sure.

I refute the unreasonable premise that something only happened if there is evidence for it. On contrary, it is demonstrable that there are all kinds of things with no evidence – most things even. Scientific studies of the past generally take this for granted. This is why creationist demands for fossil evidence of every evolutionary link is unreasonable.

I am a bit confused.

I claim:

You answer:

Then I request:

And you answer:

And stress:

So at the end of the day it seems you are acknowledging precisely what I claim:

There is NO geological or archeological evidence for a “local flood wiping out all life in the area of man’s first civilization”.

I would be thankful if you could clarify your position to see where we find common ground.

Thanks for the explanation!

This is in line with the teaching of Jesus Christ and St. Peter, who invoke Noah’s Flood in the context of the prophecies regarding the End Times. From their teaching we ought to conclude that in Noah’s Flood all accountable humans living on Earth at that time, except 8 (Noah and his family), perished in this catastrophe.

I agree. However, there is no geological or archaeological evidence for “the physical reality described in Genesis”. Real and universal as it was, the Flood is an event that does not belong to the ordinary physical reality!

Do you accept this conclusion?

If your point is that there is no conclusive objective evidence for the historicity of this story, then yes I agree. There is no conclusive objective evidence for any of the things of religion. But this is so far beyond the point of anything that it was incomprehensible to me. Religion is not scholarly history – that is not its purpose. If religion were about objective evidence then I wouldn’t even see the point of it at all. I believe in the things of religion precisely because objective evidence does not the sum total of reality make. It is like the difference between memory and videotapes. To be sure, memory is colored with all kinds of subjective viewpoint about what is important to you personally. This doesn’t mean we should replace memory with video tapes. Accuracy and objectivity serve a purpose but it is not sufficient for the living of our lives. And it doesn’t mean that our memories are not about physical reality. To claim such would be absurd.

But your attempt to equate this with something spiritual is strange. Just because there is no objective evidence for something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen in physical reality. It does mean that if you don’t want to believe it happened then you don’t have to – by all means believe whatever you want. But we can reply to your harping on the fact that there is no conclusive evidence for the historicity of the story with the fact that there is also no conclusive evidence that this story is NOT derived from an historical event.

PS. sorry for my frustration. I just couldn’t see the point of your black and white treatment of the subject. It felt like you were playing some weird game.

1 Like

No. A flood is just that and to look for evidence in the geology of a region at a time that is many thousand years ago, is unreasonable.

Magnificent!

This is the kind of statement I was waiting for.

My main premise is the following:

If we believe in the teaching of Jesus Christ, St. Peter, and the letter to the Hebrews, we have to believe in the historicity of the Flood in Genesis 6-9.

In other words, if we give up the historicity of the Flood, we will end giving up the credibility of the New Testament.

So, my line of reasoning is as follows:

  1. If an event of the magnitude of the Flood described in Genesis 6-9 had happened in the ordinary space-time, there would today have observable vestiges in the space-time evidencing it, similarly as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation demonstrates the Big-Bang.

  2. As a matter of fact, there is no available evidence demonstrating a catastrophic event like the Genesis’ Flood.

  3. Consequently, either the Flood was not a real historic event at all, or it was real and historic in a different way as ordinary events are, that is, it was an extraordinary physical event outside the ordinary space-time, a miracle.

Now regarding miracles, you state:

So “my attempt to equate the Genesis’ Flood with part of the spiritual aspect of reality” is nothing “strange”: I am merely using your words!

In fact, I mean:

The Flood is miraculous event, belonging to an extraordinary physical reality. You could also say the Flood is in “a part of the superposition” we cannot access by direct observation. We know about the event only because the author of Genesis was assisted by divine inspiration to write what he wrote also on the basis of reports going back to those who were involved (Noah and his family), and likely because of a universal revelation of God to other non-Hebrew peoples on earth.

I explain a bit more. You state:

Superb statements!

Here my counterpart:

There is only one ordinary physical reality (the algorithmic reality) and there is the extraordinary non-algorithmic physical reality (your “spiritual reality”) which can be different depending on the observers.

In my interpretation superposition encompasses observers and thus you can get that an observer is ordinarily in the measurable part of the superposition, but can extraordinarily be in the non-measurable one. While we are in the measurable part of superposition all observers we can talk to agree completely on what we observe as the results of measurements. But suppose we are witnesses of a miracle and dwell for a time in the non-measurable part of superposition. When we come back to the ordinary world we will tell the others around us what we have seen. Since before the miracle we did not hallucinate and after the miracle we agree completely on what the other observers around us see, we may be considered trustworthy and the others may believe what we tell them.

As you very well state:

In whichever way you look at it, by this claim you are referring to a “physical reality” that is inaccessible in principle to our measuring devices. Such a “reality” is what I call an “extraordinary reality” outside our ordinary space-time.

Absolutely! It is the collapse in the measuring device what defines the ordinary physical reality. Quantum superposition clearly highlights the possibility of superposition of observers, and thereby the possibility that a same physical event is differently perceived by different observers (my “extraordinary physical reality”). But this possibility is excluded from the ordinary macroscopic world we live in because the collapse hinders quantum superposition to happen in it.

No problem!

I apologize if my post looked as if “I were playing some weird game”. It was not my intention at all.

My “black and white” treatment of the subject comes rather from the desire to get an interpretation of the Flood that is consistent with what we are taught about by the New Testament.

I am getting more and more the impression we are stating the same but using different words. I am sure that with a bit patience we will understand each other well and come to interesting results!

Well… it is becoming clear with your microscope way of examining things, that we do need a little more nuance in our terminology. I certainly never said and do not mean that everything that is the least bit subjective is entirely spiritual or that I am equating spiritual with subjective.

  1. Our primary access to reality is fundamentally subjective. The objective is thus necessarily an abstraction, i.e. obtained by a process of abstraction from the commonalities of our experience.
  2. The only reason there is anything objective is the mathematical laws of nature which care nothing for our desires and beliefs. And it provides good evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality but no evidence that reality is exclusively objective.
  3. But because I find it impossible to believe this objective abstraction is the sum total of reality, I posit and believe in another aspect of reality (non-physical or spiritual) which is subjective by nature, where what we want and believe very much does matter. One unavoidable consequence of this is that this spiritual aspect of reality is that the apprehension of this spiritual reality will have considerable diversity.

I see no reason whatsoever to “give up” on the historicity of Noah’s flood. Yes we would expect SOME evidence but no we cannot expect conclusive objective evidence for every historical event, any more than we can expect a fossil for every link in the evolutionary chain of development for every species. Out of your two alternatives listed on number 3 we can add another alternative that this simply was not as seemed to be implied by a modern understanding of the words used. There was no concept of the Earth as a planet and thus no reason to think the story is referring to a planet wide flood. But I see no reason why we would not take the story seriously as referring to an actual physical event as perceived by people at the time, though perhaps altered to some degree as can be expected in an oral tradition handed down for many generations.

I do not believe in any such thing. Miracles are everyday events in the ordinary physical reality. What makes them miracles is not a violation of the laws of nature but the involvement of God. They may dismissed as coincidental or statistical anomalies by the skeptic, but they are the means by which others perceive the involvement of God in their lives.

For me this sounds like an interesting premise for a science fiction or fantasy novel only. I would find such a story fascinating but I would would not judge this to be an accurate description of the reality which I experience.

There are things with different degrees of inaccessibility to our measuring devices. There are those things which are inaccessible by nature and there are those which are inaccessible by circumstance. I am reminded of that old philosophy question of “if a tree falls in a forest with nobody around, then does it make a sound?” Of course it does. I am not a subjective idealist. It is measurable in principle even if not so by circumstance. I see no reason to evoke an “extraordinary reality outside our ordinary space-time” unless we are talking about something which is by nature not accessible to measurement.

Ahhh! I see. You seem to be seeing the quantum measurement as some extra-ordinary event which interferes with a natural state of superposition. I don’t agree with that at all. I think these quantum measurements are happening all the time all around us, and the means by which this happens can be found in chaotic dynamics. So I think you have it backwards. The macroscopic is not a collapsed singular reality because a measurement is made, but the other way around, that the measurement gives a singular result because it involves the macroscopic which is ALWAYS singular and never in a state of superposition.

Not entirely, I think. There is a difference of metaphysics here as well. Though I will not exclude the possibility of reconciling the differences as a matter of detail and focus.

1 Like