are we The Gods?

Phoenix32890,
I can not discount science's advances (nor it's blunders when establishing facts) but that is beyond my point.
I'm not talking about what humans are capable in the future, I'm talking about things that were existent even
before humans started wondering, even before humans existed. The universe didn't just pop out of nowhere.
If anyone here claims to be methodical, rational, factfinding, he himself or she herself will not accept
that the universe existed by chance and we are living in this perfect world (until man started messing around)
because "it just happened to be habitable".

Can you tell me with a straight face that humans are the highest intelligence
existing within the known universe?

0 Replies

Re: Gods Now!

MrIVI wrote:

The "is" infers it "is" present now.
If that part of use capable of latter living without decay or death is present in us now; why can't we use its power?

We can't "use" it's "power" because we still have our bodies.

0 Replies

CountDigit wrote:

Phoenix32890,
I can not discount science's advances (nor it's blunders when establishing facts) but that is beyond my point.
I'm not talking about what humans are capable in the future, I'm talking about things that were existent even
before humans started wondering, even before humans existed. The universe didn't just pop out of nowhere.
If anyone here claims to be methodical, rational, factfinding, he himself or she herself will not accept
that the universe existed by chance and we are living in this perfect world (until man started messing around)
because "it just happened to be habitable".

Can you tell me with a straight face that humans are the highest intelligence
existing within the known universe?

I can tell you with a straight face it is possible!

Fact of the matter is that EVERY EVOLVING ENTITY THAT EVER EXISTED...

...MAY...

...go through the same process of "survival of the fittest" that we apparently have undergone...

...AND EVERY EVOLVING ENTITY...

...MAY...

...as we are coming close to doing, have arrived at a point in its technological evolution where it has the ability to totally destroy its planet and all the life on it, effectively ending the evolution at that point...

...during a period in its psychological evolution where it was not disinclined to do so.

EVERY EVOLVING ENTITY...MAY...PERHAPS...(this is merely speculation to back up "the possibility mentioned above)...

...destroy themselves at this stage of development.

Maybe NO "intelligent life forms" have ever gotten past this point. Maybe we are at the absolute apex of where any evolving entity ever gets.

Maybe the universe is waiting for the first evolving entity to ever get beyong this point.

1) It doesn't look to me as though we will be the winner of this theoretical sweepstakes.

2) It is highly unlikely that this is actually the case...but it is theoretically possible.

3) So let me turn your question back on you: Can you tell us with a straight face that it is IMPOSSIBLE that humans are the highest intelligence existing within the known universe?

By the way...you asked me a question earlier to which I offered a reply. You still have not commented on that reply. Why did you ask the question?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

...as we are coming close to doing, have arrived at a point in its technological evolution where it

has the ability to totally destroy its planet and all the life on it, effectively ending the evolution at that point...

...during a period in its psychological evolution where it was not disinclined to do so.

EVERY EVOLVING ENTITY...MAY...PERHAPS...(this is merely speculation to back up "the possibility mentioned above)...

...destroy themselves at this stage of development.

Honest Frank, do you think this is the highest intelligence?

Frank Apisa wrote:

So let me turn your question back on you: Can you tell us with a straight face that it is IMPOSSIBLE

that humans are the highest intelligence existing within the known universe?

Yes it's IMPOSSIBLE. There are clear indications of intelligence within the known universe even before humans appeared on Earth. Humans can only use his/her intelligence to imitate and manipulate things that are already existing within the known universe. In fact human intelligence is only acquired never inherent.

Can you give one contribution by HUMAN INTELLIGENCE ALONE that humans can't basically live without?

0 Replies

CountDigit wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...as we are coming close to doing, have arrived at a point in its technological evolution where it

has the ability to totally destroy its planet and all the life on it, effectively ending the evolution at that point...

...during a period in its psychological evolution where it was not disinclined to do so.

EVERY EVOLVING ENTITY...MAY...PERHAPS...(this is merely speculation to back up "the possibility mentioned above)...

...destroy themselves at this stage of development.
Honest Frank, do you think this is the highest intelligence?

As I said...I have no idea if we are or are not.

I am merely pointing out that it is "possible". And despite your seeming insistence that it is not...it is.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
So let me turn your question back on you: Can you tell us with a straight face that it is IMPOSSIBLE

that humans are the highest intelligence existing within the known universe?

Yes it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Really!

Well...I guess you have already contacted another, higher intelligence...or you would be foolish to make a statement like this.

Why don't you tell us about the encounter.

Quote:

There are clear indications of intelligence within the known universe even before humans appeared on Earth.

My, my, my...another astounding thing I've learned on A2K. What a great site.

But since I like to verify the stuff that is offered up as knowledge here (some of it, Count, you will find is absolute garbage)...why don't you tell us what we know about other intelligence even before humans appeared on Earth.

That way, we can assess which category your information should be filed under.

Quote:

Humans can only use his/her intelligence to imitate and manipulate things that are already existing within the known universe. In fact human intelligence is only acquired never inherent.

Can you give one contribution by HUMAN INTELLIGENCE ALONE that humans can't basically live without?

This has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

0 Replies

Frankly, Frank, you're definitely keen on a good debate.

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

Frankly, Frank, you're definitely keen on a good debate.

Yep...I enjoy exchanging ideas...and batting 'em around.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

This is my favorite holiday! :wink:

0 Replies

Oh by the way, you KNOW who I am.

I'm trying to get my old moniker back at the moment.

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

Oh by the way, you KNOW who I am.

I am of the opinion that anything I cannot retrieve from my brain...I do not know.

But I love a good mystery...and this one has really got my attention.

Any chance you wanna give us a clue or two...or will this compromise what you are attempting to do.

(Suspicion: Did you write to me by email during the last month and a half?)

Quote:

I'm trying to get my old moniker back at the moment.

We're all waitin'...and with baited (or is that "bated?")breath!

If you are the person I think you are...we'll soon be back to arguing and such.

In any case...good luck!

0 Replies

I one two no ewe, too.

0 Replies

That's the name of the game...KNOWING

0 Replies

Did you ever find out who that -I-1-2-No-U- character was?

Boo!

0 Replies

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

0 Replies

Hi Frank, hope you don't mind answering my questions below.

1) Do you accept this definition of agnostic from Webster's New Dictionary & Thesaurus?

Agnostic - a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena

2) Are you agnostic?

0 Replies

CountDigit wrote:

Hi Frank, hope you don't mind answering my questions below.

Not at all!

Quote:

Do you accept this definition of agnostic from Webster's New Dictionary & Thesaurus?

Agnostic - a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena

I abhor this definition...and do not accept it in any way.

Whoever wrote that particular definition simply does not understand agnosticism.

Quote:

Are you agnostic?

Yes, I am.

0 Replies

What is Frank's definition of Agnosticism?

0 Replies

It comes from the Greek word γνωσις ("gnosis"), meaning "knowledge" or "to know," with the negation prefix a-. So, literally, it means "not knowing" or "not to know." Of course, this term refers to religion or theology, so in that context, it means "not to know God."
Agnosticism is simply an assertion that it is impossible to know, with any certainty, whether or not God exists, and even if he does, it is impossible to know anything about him.

http://webpages.charter.net/djhalnon/ag.html

0 Replies

Snood asserts that agnosticism means:

Quote:

Agnosticism is simply an assertion that it is impossible to know, with any certainty, whether or not God exists, and even if he does, it is impossible to know anything about him.

I appreciate where Snood is coming fromand where Dennis, his source is coming frombut no self-respecting agnostic should EVER assert that it is impossible to know whether God existsor that if a God exists, it is impossible to know anything about that God.

I think Snood's source, Dennis, whoever he is, in an otherwise excellent essay, simply got that part wrong.

If a God existsthere is absolutely nothing to prevent that God from revealing Itself in an absolutely unambiguous waynor to prevent that God from revealing everything about Itself, should it choose to do so.

(I don't think any God has ever done thatand my evaluation of the evidence about supposed revelation causes me to guess those "revelations" are merely myth.)

But to assert it is impossible.flies in the face of reason.

(NOTE: It appears it IS IMPOSSIBLE to know there are no gods.even if that happens to be the case.)

I cannot speak for all agnosticsbut just about every agnostic I know pretty much asserts his/her agnosticism approximately this way:

First, there is some personal commentary:

I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questionssuch as "Is there a God or are there no gods?" or "If there is a God, what is that God like?" or "If there is a God, are there things that please or offend that Godand if so, what are they?" or "If there is a God, are there things that God expects of meand what are those things?"

As to the direct question of the existence of a God: Most agnostics I know go in this direction:

I do not know if a God existsor if no gods existand I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

After the personal commentary, many agnostics will add a bit of guesswork (clearly identified, by the phraseology, as guesswork):

It does not appear to me that anyone else KNOWS if there is a Godor if there are no gods

and the people who assert with certainty in either directions appear, after consideration, to be guessing.

Nowhow can one put all that into a concise definition that can be used in a dictionary?

Wellit ain't easy.and quite honestly, although I mentioned that I loathe the definition the Count got from Webster on-lineit certainly can be used in idle conversation. There are many words in dictionariesparticularly in the philosophic or spiritual areaswhere definitions are "close, but not truly on target" just so the words can be used in the idle conversation I just mentioned.

Here in an Internet forum devoted to deeper probing into these issues, however, using that definition can be a disaster.

In any case, any definition of "agnostic" that includes the phrase "An agnostic believes" is going nowhere very fast.

As most people here know, I am willing to discuss this from here to eternity and back. If you have any questions...or feel you want to challenge anything I've said...please do.

0 Replies

Come, come now, Frank - you are much too coy.

Did you say?:

"If a God exists…there is absolutely nothing to prevent that God from revealing Itself in an absolutely unambiguous way…nor to prevent that God from revealing everything about Itself, should it choose to do so."

"Absolutely nothing to prevent...?"
What do you propose would be an "unambiguous way" for God to prove His existence?

Caution now, Frank, your agnosticism is teetering.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Come, come now, Frank - you are much too coy.

Did you say?:

"If a God existsthere is absolutely nothing to prevent that God from revealing Itself in an absolutely unambiguous waynor to prevent that God from revealing everything about Itself, should it choose to do so."

"Absolutely nothing to prevent...?"
What do you propose would be an "unambiguous way" for God to prove His existence?

Caution now, Frank, your agnosticism is teetering.

Please, Bib...stow the "your agnosticism is teetering" nonsense. My agnosticsim is rock solid, thank you. And there is nothing about what I said to cause anyone to logically conclude that my agnosticism is teetering.

Anyway...to answer your question:

If there is a God...and if the God is responsible for the creation of the 200 billion suns in our galaxy....and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies we know of...and of the space these galaxies are spread thrughout...

...I am absolutely certain that God could make its presence KNOWN...IN A WAY THAT NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY QUESTION...if It chose to do so.

What problem do you have with that?

0 Replies

are we The Gods?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know