Are we becoming Gods ourselves?

[Farkas]

It may sound like a silly question, but I was wondering if we are becoming Gods ourselves? We can create life out of nothing, we can decide who dies before birth and we can decide how a baby will look like before it is even born.

We also have the ability to create diseases and we have conquered sea, land and air. The only thing we haven't figured out yet is immortality, but we are pretty close to it if you look at the advances made with organ transplantations and all these other things. It's incredible what medical science can do nowadays with the help of electronic equipment and other technology.

Take a look at this part of the Holy Bible aswell:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

We all know that God is not a wizard and that He does not create things within a blink of an eye. Everything starts from scratch. A baby is created from a sperm seed and an egg cell, a tree is born out of a small seed, etc.
Humans did not start 'becoming God' immediately, but it took man many centuries to become what we are today.

Give your opinion:

"Are we becoming God?"

[Geist]

In the grand scheme of things mans ability to conquer is limited. He is also seemingly imcapable of employing foresight when altering nature. In this sense I believe we are perhaps the furthest things from Gods in the universe. In a mythological or religious sense I would suggest we are closest to the Cyclops.

Not sure which poem this borrows from but the line is 'perhaps King Oedipus has one eye too many'.

[Farkas]

In the grand scheme of things mans ability to conquer is limited. He is also seemingly imcapable of employing foresight when altering nature. In this sense I believe we are perhaps the furthest things from Gods in the universe. In a mythological or religious sense I would suggest we are closest to the Cyclops.

Not sure which poem this borrows from but the line is 'perhaps King Oedipus has one eye too many'.

But isn't man breaking its limits? Man is, in my opinion, slowly but surely becoming God himself. Through history we have found ways to do things that no one else, but God, can. Now we can see the consequences of what happens when we play around with nature. Before, we couldn't see it because we did not have any experience at that time. Now that we have that experience, we also have this foresight.

[Geist]

But isn't man breaking its limits? Man is, in my opinion, slowly but surely becoming God himself. Through history we have found ways to do things that no one else, but God, can. Now we can see the consequences of what happens when we play around with nature. Before, we couldn't see it because we did not have any experience at that time. Now that we have that experience, we also have this foresight.

What limits? Only through the prism of a progressivist world-view can we establish boundaries on what is essentially a boundless field of life. We have developed numerous ways to alter our surroundings, but rarely acknowledge the consequences. What we have now is a patchwork of technology over previous technological innovations. Our knowledge is broadly theoretical in nature and we still resort to religious and mystical answers to the broadest questions. That is we often defer to God.

If one looks at our interaction with nature and climate one can infer that our understanding consistently fails to predict the disaster that our interfering will result in. Our response is usually a deference to the same technological cause. It is a lowly species that consistently applies the same solution to the cause of the problem.

[Arminius]

It may sound like a silly question, but I was wondering if we are becoming Gods ourselves?
Give your opinion:

"Are we becoming God?"

That is a silly question.
What is a deity? Is it a supernatural being? We are not supernatural.
Not even the most powerful of species can be supernatural; we are all limited in some way by the natural laws. Each of the "powers" of said species can be traced and explained scientifically, gods' powers cannot be - it's magic and superstition. It may be that we could seem to be gods to an ignorant and primitive race/species, but that just shows their ignorance of the technology we use rather than showing the divinity of ourselves.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Petr will spleenkick you when he sees this thread. :p

[VAMPIR]

All that you said is not enough to even think of pronouncing ourselves Gods. We are on the way to oposite.

[Petr]

Petr will spleenkick you when he sees this thread. :p
Why should I waste my energy on some silly little teenager with delusions of grandeur? :p

Seriously, progressivism is beginning to annoy me more and more. The same old lie ever since Eden, "Ye shall be as gods."


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

Why should I waste my energy on some silly little teenager with delusions of grandeur? :p

Seriously, progressivism is beginning to annoy me more and more. The same old lie ever since Eden, "Ye shall be as gods."


Petr

Whoa, not what I expected. ;)

[Farkas]

Ok guys, I agree with you when you say that we are degenerating. On the other hand, technology-wise that is, we are capable of things that only God can do. Think of how we can produce children without having a man 'physically touch' a woman or how that we can control the fierest of nature with our construction technology (think of the Delta works in Holland, par exemple). Of course, we will never become God Himself but you guys can't deny that we are doing things now that we would have never thought of, let's say, 30 years ago.

With every technology comes degeneration aswell. Look at TV for instance. And sometimes we don't know what is good or right. Satan creates kaffirs (evil), God creates Aids (good) and we are trying to fight Aids (complete stupidity). :deadhorse:

If one looks at our interaction with nature and climate one can infer that our understanding consistently fails to predict the disaster that our interfering will result in. Our response is usually a deference to the same technological cause. It is a lowly species that consistently applies the same solution to the cause of the problem.

Can you give me some examples, Dizzee? In the world of money and power, the politicians and leaders use the same solution on several issues just to suit their needs.

That is a silly question.
What is a deity? Is it a supernatural being? We are not supernatural.
Not even the most powerful of species can be supernatural; we are all limited in some way by the natural laws. Each of the "powers" of said species can be traced and explained scientifically, gods' powers cannot be - it's magic and superstition. It may be that we could seem to be gods to an ignorant and primitive race/species, but that just shows their ignorance of the technology we use rather than showing the divinity of ourselves.

Silly little teenagers bring silly little questions and that is why they need silly little answers :p

Aren't we discovering, bit by bit, in a scientific sense how God's powers work? Personally, I believe in a God and that he is the mightiest of all beings, but everything that happens in this world is triggered by him in a natural way that humans, with the needed knowledge, can do. In that sense we are not God, but we have the technology to be a tiny bit God. Of course, every time we use this technology, it was God that triggered this through us. And that is why we can't be God Himself because we can't trigger a certain event on it's own. That doesn't mean, however, that we aren't inheriting God's powers bit by bit through technology (except the one that I just named).

One question: Can someone define God for me, please?

[Geist]

Can you give me some examples, Dizzee? In the world of money and power, the politicians and leaders use the same solution on several issues just to suit their needs.


Think of how the development of industry originally gave birth to the highest standards of living we have ever witnessed only for the very same development to turn on us by way of the pollutants that resulted from it. Our solution is then to employ more technology to solve the problem without thinking that in 300 years this very application will have some vastly negative effects on a future generation. We never progress so much as patch over our current problem until the solution in turn causes problems for future generations.

[Farkas]

Think of how the development of industry originally gave birth to the highest standards of living we have ever witnessed only for the very same development to turn on us by way of the pollutants that resulted from it. Our solution is then to employ more technology to solve the problem without thinking that in 300 years this very application will have some vastly negative effects on a future generation. We never progress so much as patch over our current problem until the solution in turn causes problems for future generations.

Industry really started in the 19th century and at that time we had no idea what industry would cause to nature. In the late 20th century we became aware of stuff such as pollution. Now we are experimenting with new ways to keep the pollution as low as possible. Somewhere in time we will be able to solve this. We are just in the baby-steps of things. We still have lots to learn and therefore we must be patient.

[Geist]

Industry really started in the 19th century and at that time we had no idea what industry would cause to nature. In the late 20th century we became aware of stuff such as pollution. Now we are experimenting with new ways to keep the pollution as low as possible. Somewhere in time we will be able to solve this. We are just in the baby-steps of things. We still have lots to learn and therefore we must be patient.

Do Gods have to take baby-steps after systematically decimating entire swathes of that which sustains them?

[Farkas]

Do Gods have to take baby-steps after systematically decimating entire swathes of that which sustains them?

Maybe, maybe not. That's a question that no one can give an answer on since we don't know what God is. We only see His work on this planet and that's about it. The only things we know about Him are in the Bible.

[Sulla the Dictator]

In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from the creation to the development of the noosphere in the present, to his vision of the Omega Point in the future. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way. To Teilhard, evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and whole-universe (see Gaia theory). Such theories are generally termed teleological views of evolution. While these theories postulate a goal to the process of evolution, they should not be confused with the teleological implications of a theory like intelligent design. Standard orthogenesis does not hold that evolutionary processes cannot of themselves account for complexity.

Controversies about his line of thought centre on the question of whether or not the mission started by Christ was completed with his crucifixion, or whether mankind is meant to advance Christ's mission via the evolutionary process. Some theologians see an unbridgeable gulf between the traditional teaching that mankind was redeemed by a single act of divine intercession - mediated by the sacraments of the Catholic Church - and the notion that mankind might perfect itself by degrees, and over a long period of time. Holding with the latter, Teilhard proposed that the culmination of human history in the Omega point would represent actual Christogenesis. He said "A religion which is supposed to be inferior to our ideal as mankind, whatever the miracles surrounding it, is a Lost Religion."[citation needed]

There is no doubt that The Phenomenon of Man represents Teilhard's attempt at reconciling his religious faith with his academic interests as a paleontologist.[2] One particularly poignant observation in Teilhard's book entails the notion that evolution is becoming an increasingly optional process.[3] Teilhard points to the societal problems of isolation and marginalization as huge inhibitors of evolution, especially since evolution requires a unification of consciousness. He states that "no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else."[4] This statement can effectively be seen as Teilhard's demand for unity insofar as the human condition necessitates it. He also states that "evolution is an ascent toward consciousness," and therefore, signifies a continuous upsurge toward the Omega Point, which for all intents and purposes, is God.[5]

Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teachings

[Templar]

God is the only true exister. Infinite, Allmighty and Eternal.

Humans, compared to him are, no matter what "level" they might fight their way to through life's obstacles, ultimately powerless.

We only exist through his words, by his grace and for his glory.

The thread starting question itself is a blasphemy, and a clear mirror of the Satanic pride of "modern day humanity", and the condemnable spirit of the "age of enlightenment" that defined God as nonexistant, placed humanity to the role of God, and declared that all things that humans can not prove or define with their mortal "scientifical" tools is nonexistant.

Building another tower of babel, and priding oneself on that "accomplishment", is hardly a christian virtue.