The current distinction between humans and gods

[PoetPhilosopher]

Personally, I think that we as a species have failed for a very long time at justifying our casual breeding and killing with a corresponding level of ethical responsibility.

Until and unless that mismatch is ever addressed and hopefully solved, there isn't much point in attempting to decide how to deal with life and death.

I agree with you. However, if I were to describe how some of my points "may" still apply, I'd use the abstract thought of saying "Not everyone who can use a wheel, knows how to properly craft a wheel."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But if you're suggesting that I think it's an obstacle to overcome.... I agree that that's my position.

Everything dies, including stars. Death is how the universe renews itself. But some puny humans seem to be the only beings who have a problem with it. I think we need to stop viewing ourselves as above nature. We come from it and are a part of it as everything else. The shortness of life is what gives it meaning, or at least is a big part of that meaning. There's all kinds of issues with the notion of people having eternal physical life, ethical and practical. It would quickly become a dystopia. This scenario has been explored a ton of times in speculative fiction. I don't recall a book or film where it ends well.

 

[We Never Know]

Do you believe that humans are worthy of worship?

IMHO, that's really the only relevant question to ask when engaging in the process of deification. Something is a god because a human decides it is worthy of worship in their life. If you make the call that humans are gods, than it is so. Considering how embedded ancestor worship has been throughout human history, this wouldn't be a novel thing to do either.

"Do you believe that humans are worthy of worship?"

Well... There's Trump and sadly I think.some worship him. And no he is not worthy.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Everything dies, including stars. Death is how the universe renews itself. But some puny humans seem to be the only beings who have a problem with it.

I'd say that's a somewhat unfair comparison for a couple of reasons:

1. Humans are small compared to the universe, but so far, are the species most likely to save or destroy themselves and other humans. So, in theory, I'd support humans saving themselves, rather than just finding new ways of destroying themselves. I think one can play nature to save lives, but they have to be extremely careful about it.

2. The lifespan of a photon is billions and billions of years. The lifespan of a human is about 65-100.

 

[Quintessence]

It'd be hard for me to answer what level of inequality you'd have to reach with other humans to be worshipped by other humans.

Do you know why you make inequality a condition of your assessment? What kind of inequality, given no human is identical (totally equal) to any other human?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It'd be hard for me to answer what level of inequality you'd have to reach with other humans to be worshipped by other humans.

Check out the Pacific cargo cults for some practical examples...

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you know why you make inequality a condition of your assessment? What kind of inequality, given no human is identical (totally equal) to any other human?

When I say that inequality leads to people worshipping others, I mean that when there is a large gap between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, the privileged and the oppressed, some people tend to idolize those who have more than them, or those who represent their "visions" or dreams they strive for. This can take the form of religious worship, such as in some cults or groups that follow charismatic leaders, or it can be more secular, such as in celebrity culture, "fandoms", or political movements.

One example of inequality leading to worship is the case of North Korea's Kim, and the North Korean people.

 

[Quintessence]

When I say that inequality leads to people worshipping others, I mean that when there is a large gap between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, the privileged and the oppressed, some people tend to idolize those who have more than them, or those who represent their "visions" or dreams they strive for. This can take the form of religious worship, such as in some cults or groups that follow charismatic leaders, or it can be more secular, such as in celebrity culture, "fandoms", or political movements.

One example of inequality leading to worship is the case of North Korea's Kim, and the North Korean people.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think this confused me because this is not the process I go through when engaging in deification. I don't engage in ancestor worship because of inequality or disparities, I do so because it is a way of respecting where I come from and the love I have for my parents.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Thanks for clarifying.

I think this confused me because this is not the process I go through when engaging in deification. I don't engage in ancestor worship because of inequality or disparities, I do so because it is a way of respecting where I come from and the love I have for my parents.

In my case, I'm just kind of fumbling with the wording and how to discuss it, because it seemed like you approached things from the standpoint of the gods you worshipped, when I was talking about the example of a human being gaining the ability to "revive" the dead but not actually being one of your gods. So, I felt like I might not be able to approach the subject head-on, because eventually we'd both realize that there may be differences between a human that gained the ability to "revive" the dead, and your gods. So given those scenarios, I might have implied that I only saw there as being an ability to approach the subject from an inequality standpoint.

 

[wellwisher]

In my case, I'm just kind of fumbling with the wording and how to discuss it, because it seemed like you approached things from the standpoint of the gods you worshipped, when I was talking about the example of a human being gaining the ability to "revive" the dead but not actually being one of your gods. So, I felt like I might not be able to approach the subject head-on, because eventually we'd both realize that there may be differences between a human that gained the ability to "revive" the dead, and your gods. So given those scenarios, I might have implied that I only saw there as being an ability to approach the subject from an inequality standpoint.

The main problem is many people are already concerned with world over population. From 1970 to today the world has doubled its population to 8.1 billion. Ironically, this was caused by modern technology and medical breakthroughs; food and medicine.

If we added the wild card of being able to revive life, while more and more people are still breeding like rabbits, the population explosion would get critical. This is where a God would have more common sense and preserve old life in a different way; move them to another realm after death where there is more space.

 

[Ostronomos]

I may play a little bit of Devil's Advocate for sake of this opening post... Anyway...

We live in a world where we have, very early on, learned how to create and destroy life.

We can manipulate the genetic code of living organisms, engineer new forms of life, and clone existing ones. People have also ended lives with weapons, spread of diseases, or contributing to environmental factors and disasters.

But what about restoring or reviving life? What does it take to bring back something that was once alive, but is now dead? Is it possible to reverse the process of death, or is it a one-way street? What are the ethical, moral, and spiritual implications of such an endeavor?

Some might argue that restoring or reviving life is a natural extension of creating or destroying it. If we can make or break life, why not fix or renew it? If we can save lives from death, why not resurrect them from death? If we can enhance lives with technology, why not revive them with technology?

Still others might believe that restoring or reviving life is a violation of the natural order of things. If something is meant to die, it should stay dead. If something is gone, it should not be brought back. If something is beyond repair, it should not be fixed. To tamper with the cycle of life and death is to play God, they might say... and to invite unforeseen consequences.

But what if there is a third way of looking at this issue? What if restoring or reviving life is not a matter of science or technology, but of something else? Something more mysterious, more miraculous. What if there is some miraculous means to restore life? How would that play out? What abilities would one need? And if you had those abilities, would it be within your rights and natural right to use them?

Fear not, for the Great Genius has answered the call of immortality. Although I'm not all the way at that level of intelligence, I have certainly made leaps and bounds over the course of the last few days (some of you who have been following me may have noticed).

Now, to proceed with the tinkering of the idea of immortality (as prophesized by my mans dem, Nostradamus)...

You certainly have written an intruiging post needless to say. You mentioned the possibility of accessing the spiritual and using that to somehow revitalize the physical body. Without the aid of technology.

Hmmm....

Now, as far as I can tell, I am not qualified to give anything more than a shallow explanation. But if you take into consideration a spirit-body "interface" using ethereal yet "physical" information, perhaps we might have something. What say you?

COULD WE ACHEIVE A SPIRIT-BODY INTERFACE USING COMPUTATIONAL LANGUAGE THAT MELDS MIND AND REALITY???

 

[Ostronomos]

I am beginning to wonder whether I can achieve that state of expanded "cognition/ consciousness" permanently without the aid of old green. To actually gain what I personally call "the seeing" I would have to first gain access to that "precious genius inducing resource". My "higher genius" (which we all have) Identity.

 

[Ostronomos]

Quantum Quack said: (2007): ↑

Quote:Randomness:
Can a system be constructed that is truly random in nature?
If you can not prove randomness is possible then everything must by default be determined. ~is the challenge.

I am not and I am. A square becomes circle because of the point-by-point singularity and infinity rolled up into Planck diameter.

The I am that is God, good and love.

I am God consciousness. I therefore am God, consciousness, good and love.

I am also pure awareness. All things hence become one and the existence of existential and other concepts are merged by their opposites defined by "I" and non-"I" to create objects of specific level and cognitive priority. Thought and concepts are truly non-conceptual and imperceptible as the non-separation of GOd is the one reality in existence and of existence (the real universe). It is this non-separation that conception causes, we can conceive only nothing before we can perceive something.

 

[Ostronomos]

After much internal aspiration I felt the all-enlightening spark behind my eyes yet again (a few seconds ago) and now I have reached yet further on the road to supreme genius. It is an irresistible pull towards God THROUGH intellectual supremacy.

 

[Whateverist]

With the last example - if you had those abilities - I'm prone to believe that it still doesn't necessarily make you a god, and that you would still be subject to a lot of the limitations of being human.

Well I don't think anything or anyone is or can be a god or God. There is something which has given rise to God belief but it isn't anything like a god. So there certainly isn't any power or ability which would make one a god, except for in Hollywood. If God/gods means anything at all it isn't a thing or being. It is something else.

But if we ever have the means to resurrect extinct species via CRISPR or whatever, I'd be against it until we demonstrate the will to leave room for wild stocks of creatures that still exist to live on this planet alongside us.

 

[syo]

But what about restoring or reviving life?

What about it?