Why God in any Majro Religion would desire Post-Humanism for Humanity

Originally posted by Omega Vision
God should have stopped the spider from biting him then. I find it odd that you sympathize enough with Spider-Man to read his comics despite thinking that he's an abomination. Or do you not share God's disgust?

I would love to hear your definition of what makes an eagle an eagle, what constitutes "eagleness."

Not having prosthetic wings that increase their flight speed.

However, if their prosthetic wings don't increase their speed, they are still eagles.

If they decrease their speed, than they are RIGHTEOUS.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Glasses do not change your humanity, do they?

Or contacts?

Retinal implants?

Prosthetic arms and legs?

No, they do not. You are still human. "Post-human" is something beyond human, hence the name.

I'm not talking about glasses/contacts to fix eyesight or prosthetic legs to walk. I'm talking about changing the basic nature of humanity, such as brain augmentation or DNA manipulation.

Have you ever heard of the ship of Theseus? The sailor replaces the mast one year, replaces the hull the next, and replaces the deck the year after that. Is he still on the same ship? If he isn't, when did it change?

Glasses do not make me an abomination, okay.

If I put on night vision goggles I now have an ability much unlike an human. I suspect you will accept that this has not made me an abomination either. However, if my DNA is changed to give me night vision then am I an abomination? I think you will say yes. But I don't know what you will say about a similarly permanent mechanical change (replacing my retina with a specialized device).

None of this is to say that Spider-Man isn't an abomination before god. The question is where do we draw the line? What are the things that matter? This is a question that should matter a lot to you, agreeing to the wrong medical procedure could send you to hell.

If it is the surpass normal capacity (a pretty good way of defining post human) then steroids should makes people abominations as should prosthetic legs specialized for running.

As for augmenting the brain or DNA what do we do with people have have a genetic disorder. Does fixing them render them abominations? Does it turn them suddenly human? A person born without legs is allowed to get prosthetics but should he avoid a biological fix that will regrown them for him?

Originally posted by Dolos
Technically we're still human even if technology augments or even replaces most of our bodies.

What is the technical definition of "human"?

Originally posted by Dolos
Technology will never be able to replace our organic brains, it will be able to assimilate our consciousness by replacing our brain with a similar structure, but composed of nanobots as opposed to cells.

So . . . technology will never replace our organic brains until it replaces our organic brains.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What is the technical definition of "human"?

Technological implants don't change our species specification as each implant is unique per individual preference. We are still apart of that same group as long as we're alive, Human V 2.0 some call it, however, it's just a bunch of amputations if you think about it. That technology is an extension of our bodies, not apart of our bodies.

So . . . technology will never replace our organic brains until it replaces our organic brains.

You're missing the point, a person wouldn't survive the transition. A new consciousness is made in the process, one that isn't human.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
God should have stopped the spider from biting him then. I find it odd that you sympathize enough with Spider-Man to read his comics despite thinking that he's an abomination. Or do you not share God's disgust?

I would love to hear your definition of what makes an eagle an eagle, what constitutes "eagleness."

I stopped reading comics (DC, Marvel, etc.) quite a bit ago. I used to love them at one point, though.

Originally posted by Dolos
Most religions preach 'Love Thy Neighbor', which basically says do right by your fellow human. Right as in peace, as in love, as in happiness and joy. No struggle no war.

Technology, it seems can provide said totalitarian peace in ways even religion cannot. Perhaps God offers peace and eternal love through death, but what we choose to do with what we have to us in this world, can offer peace and eternal love through life.

Why only bless humans?? Why not bless all forms of life, dogs, cats, self-conscious superhuman femtoprocessors, humans that have transformed themselves into superhuman femptoproccessors?

Most religions also preach that higher forms of life are above lower forms, human to animals for example, that we should rejoice in eating said animals if it keeps us alive. However, the relationship between machines and humans is completely different, as machines don't need to eat humans to survive, machines don't need sustenance at all.

In fact, as we expand our consciousness, we will be more divine and righteous in God's eyes by the same logic in the Bible and Hinduism as humans being greater than animals.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but if he knows the future and everything is a product of his will, free will or not, you can't argue he didn't intend for it to happen, moral consequences aside.

idk, I agree, I don't get the argument either.

But if you credit a supreme being with being able to do all things and see all things then it never made sense to me that you can discredit them because you can not comprehend them doing something.

If they are supreme and can do anything that means that they can do the things even you can't imagine them doing.

ie if they can do anything then them creating free will and knowing everything and still being just doesn't actually sound off to me because they can do anything and everything if they exist.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's the one where God wipes out humanity because he's afraid that they'll become as great/better than him, right?

God, in essence.

Originally posted by Newjak
This seems more propaganda to me then informed.

I haven't really believed in the bible for a long time but I never got that argument against God. I mean I understand the idea behind it. If logically something creates a paradox of thinking then it shouldn't be able to exist.

But if you credit a supreme being with being able to do all things and see all things then it never made sense to me that you can discredit them because you can not comprehend them doing something.

If they are supreme and can do anything that means that they can do the things even you can't imagine them doing.

ie if they can do anything then them creating free will and knowing everything and still being just doesn't actually sound off to me because they can do anything and everything if they exist.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We're not talking about God's limitations Re:Free Will, we're talking about the impossibility of Free Will in a world created by an omnipotent, omnscient, and proactive being. You can't just handwave those arguments by saying "God is all powerful." In fact, that God is supposedly all powerful and all knowing is precisely why free will doesn't work. And so free will becomes a kind of sophistry used by religious people to reconcile the problem of evil.

If God exists and God can do anything and everything God wants then God could create Free Will and still be all the things you described because God can do anything and everything even the things you can't comprehend happening.

Like I said it never made sense to me to say if God does exist and can do anything then God can't do this because if God exists and can do anything God can't do that even though they can do anything they want.

Originally posted by Newjak
Actually you can hand wave those arguments by saying God is all powerful.

If God exists and God can do anything and everything God wants then God could create Free Will and still be all the things you described because God can do anything and everything even the things you can't comprehend happening.

Like I said it never made sense to me to say if God does exist and can do anything then God can't do this because if God exists and can do anything God can't do that even though they can do anything they want.

So, not only is it a copout, it's an example of double-think. It makes much more sense to say that free will doesn't exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent God, or to not make any claims about God at all if you can't back them up with justifiable reasoning. In order for an omniscient, omnipotent God to allow free will he would have to be completely uninvolved in the workings of the Universe, and even that might not be enough.

Originally posted by Newjak
I haven't really believed in the bible for a long time but I never got that argument against God. I mean I understand the idea behind it. If logically something creates a paradox of thinking then it shouldn't be able to exist.

But if you credit a supreme being with being able to do all things and see all things then it never made sense to me that you can discredit them because you can not comprehend them doing something.

If they are supreme and can do anything that means that they can do the things even you can't imagine them doing.

ie if they can do anything then them creating free will and knowing everything and still being just doesn't actually sound off to me because they can do anything and everything if they exist.

thats not really the point, nor am I making an argument about God. Rather, I'm talking about what have to be the consequences of a being that is all powerful and all knowing creating something.

So, Bat Dude said God didn't intend for man to be post-human. However, if it happens, then certainly you can't say God didn't intend for it to go this way. He would have known this outcome and it was totally within his power to stop.

The thing is, issues like free will are moot in what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if you are predestined or not, it really doesn't even matter if God doesn't like the consequences of your choices, in terms of intent, God created it that way.

Basically, in a situation where you have both power over your actions and full knowledge of their consequences, you can't argue that the outcome of that action wasn't intentional. If something happens in the universe, God intended it.

I get what Newjack is saying. I also have a way for it all to work, logically.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is a copout argument that makes it impossible to talk seriously about God because it throws out conventional logic and human reason.

I don't see a problem.

Basically, you're saying, "Let's talk about an illogical, beyond-science being, with logic and science."

That doesn't and should never make sense. It would be like describing the mass of an object with it's color: "The car has a mass of blue."

It just cannot happen.

But here is how it works, logically:

We all have free-will which is the essence of Godliness. Our ability to chose, of our own accord, is what makes us have a semblance to God.

However, God is acutely aware of all potential outcomes for each and every individual. But God does NOT know exactly which of the nearly infinite paths our life's journey will take. God can get extremely close due to his wisdom and knowledge of us but he technically does not know with a 100% surety where our free will takes us along the nearly infinite amount of choices we can take.

But he is still aware of all of those paths.

Therefore, he knows all potential outcomes: still omniscience. One could argue that knowing all potential outcomes rather than just the 1 true outcome is a superior version of omniscience.

I can claim that my God is better than your God, now. WEEE!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is a copout argument that makes it impossible to talk seriously about God because it throws out conventional logic and human reason. It's the same sort of "we can't comprehend a perfect being, so don't try to understand God's motivation for creating evil." It is only a way for theists to compensate for the inherent weaknesses of their positions and to save Sunday-School volunteer teachers from the tricky questions of precocious children. The logical conclusion of your position is such: God knows everything, but seeing as God gave humanity free will it follows that humans have the capacity to choose a course of action that God did not predict. Yet God still predicted their actions because God knows everything. But it was not predicted. Yet it was predicted. God has a plan, and it is in his will that some of his creations act against his will. But it was still his creations that chose to act against his will, even though nothing can break from his divine plan because he is all knowing and all powerful.

So, not only is it a copout, it's an example of double-think. It makes much more sense to say that free will doesn't exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent God, or to not make any claims about God at all if you can't back them up with justifiable reasoning. In order for an omniscient, omnipotent God to allow free will he would have to be completely uninvolved in the workings of the Universe, and even that might not be enough.

Cause a limitless being that can do anything can in fact do anything, once you say they can't do something they are now limited. So if our initial assumption is they are all knowing and all powerful than everything you say afterwards is null in void because under that assumption they can do anything even the things you don't believe they can do.

You can't argue that caveat away unlimited power and knowledge is unlimited meaning without limits, and that doesn't take away serious discussion about God. It removes a stance that doesn't really accomplish anything. About the only thing it tries to do imo is make theists sound completely irrational. Which if you talk to people who believe in God most really aren't irrational people at all even if you feel that one aspect of their life is irrational.

This of course doesn't pertain to what Bat Dude is saying. Also I'm using God as an insertion point for an all knowing all powerful being.

Originally posted by Oliver North
thats not really the point, nor am I making an argument about God. Rather, I'm talking about what have to be the consequences of a being that is all powerful and all knowing creating something.

So, Bat Dude said God didn't intend for man to be post-human. However, if it happens, then certainly you can't say God didn't intend for it to go this way. He would have known this outcome and it was totally within his power to stop.

The thing is, issues like free will are moot in what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if you are predestined or not, it really doesn't even matter if God doesn't like the consequences of your choices, in terms of intent, God created it that way.

Basically, in a situation where you have both power over your actions and full knowledge of their consequences, you can't argue that the outcome of that action wasn't intentional. If something happens in the universe, God intended it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Like I said it never made sense to me to say if God does exist and can do anything then God can't do this because if God exists and can do anything God can't do that even though they can do anything they want.

Of course this argument also means that we don't need god since a god that can defy logic can do all of this without existing. Parsimoniously there's no reason to believe in god.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I can confidently say that Spider-Man is an abomination before God.

I have so much to say to this. So much. But I'm oddly amused by it as well. The beautiful dichotomy of bemused glee and twitching nerd rage has rendered me unable to respond.

BD reminds of the Westboro Baptists, though. I.e. "This is what God thinks, we know this for certain, and it includes damning all kinds of otherwise-moral people."

Originally posted by Newjak

Cause a limitless being that can do anything can in fact do anything, once you say they can't do something they are now limited. So if our initial assumption is they are all knowing and all powerful than everything you say afterwards is null in void because under that assumption they can do anything even the things you don't believe they can do.

You can't argue that caveat away unlimited power and knowledge is unlimited meaning without limits, and that doesn't take away serious discussion about God. It removes a stance that doesn't really accomplish anything. About the only thing it tries to do imo is make theists sound completely irrational. Which if you talk to people who believe in God most really aren't irrational people at all even if you feel that one aspect of their life is irrational.

This of course doesn't pertain to what Bat Dude is saying. Also I'm using God as an insertion point for an all knowing all powerful being.

But answer this: how do we have a serious discussion about a God who can contradict himself without contradiction?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course this argument also means that we don't need god since a god that can defy logic can do all of this without existing. Parsimoniously there's no reason to believe in god.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not arguing that unlimited power is limited. I'm arguing that you can't simply dismiss the question: "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?" by saying "He can" and then not admitting that you're not respecting classical logic.

But answer this: how do we have a serious discussion about a God who can contradict himself without contradiction?

We can have a serious discussion on God based on how you define God. Are we talking biblical God? Finite God? Islamic God, are we talking about the various aspects that a limited God can not over come. What types of things could limit God. Do we believe there can exist a being that could be limitless in nature(note I said can exist not assuming one already exists)?

As for can God create a Rock even God themselves can not lift? Sure they can. They also can't cause technically an all powerful being can do anything even the act of being able to not limit themselves. They can do it and not do it all 😛

Originally posted by Newjak
True except he can also exist as well, in fact he could in theory exist and not exist at the same time 😛

Exactly. The point is once you propose a god unbounded by logic you now have a god about which, by definition, nothing is known and nothing can be known. Since its impossible (or at best meaningless) to believe in such a god it isn't really worth discussing any farther.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Exactly. The point is once you propose a god unbounded by logic you now have a god about which, by definition, nothing is known and nothing can be known. Since its impossible (or at best meaningless) to believe in such a god it isn't really worth discussing any farther.

YouTube video