If We're so Special then Why.....

#1
.....aren't we equipped with the best bodies that nature can offer, or perhaps something even better? Personally I'd love to possess the eyesight of an eagle, the speed of a cheetah, the physical strength of an elephant and..... you get my drift. For those who steadfastly believe, accept, know etc that God created us differently, so as to be a special occupant of the Earth, is there any reason why we play second fiddle to other creatures on this planet in regard to body design. 

I'm thinking God, should he exist, values intelligence more than physical prowess. Seems to me that God is generally accepted as some shapeless super intelligent entity and not one who throws about lightning bolts, although if called upon would have no problem doing so. If we are created in God's image and God is nothing more than a mind for instance, then it only stands to reason everything he does physically has nothing to do with having extraordinary physical attributes. 

This question may arise, will we be capable of someday engineering the supernatural body parts that God didn't deem necessary for us? Also, there isn't much doubt that certain animals were revered for their attributes by civilizations throughout the centuries. Seems peculiar to me that we would put other animals on a pedestal for having something we don't have or weren't given to us by the Almighty.
Reply
#2
(Nov 18, 2017 04:08 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [...] This question may arise, will we be capable of someday engineering the supernatural body parts that God didn't deem necessary for us?


Or our performing the very information uploading / storage of mind and downloading into age-resistant android bodies that God resorts to in the peculiar interpretation of the resurrection below? (But "a whole different world" might instead shift to simulated bodies in a virtual reality rather than robotic embodiment.)

NANCEY MURPHY:  Right, there is no part of us that continues to exist after death.

ROBERT KUHN:  And that God would have to resurrect the body and recreate your thought patterns.

NANCEY MURPHY:  Basically, yes, re-create us in a different form, a whole different world, because otherwise we would be equally subject to corruption and decay as we are in this life.
--Can Web Believe in Both Science and Religion? ... older episode of PBS's CLOSER TO THE TRUTH

Murphy's overly(?) liberal thought orientation about Christianity:

It is widely agreed that the Hebrew Bible presents a holistic account of human nature, somewhat akin to contemporary physicalism. The New Testament authors certainly knew various theories of human nature, including dualism, but it was not their purpose to teach about this issue. [...] I follow New Testament scholar James Dunn in holding that the biblical authors were not interested in cataloguing the metaphysical parts of a human being -- body, soul, spirit, mind. Their interest was in relationships. The words that later Christians have translated with Greek philosophical terms and then understood as referring to parts of the self originally were used to designate aspects of human life. For example, spirit refers not to an immaterial something but to our capacity to be in relationship with God, to be moved by God’s Spirit.

Quote:Also, there isn't much doubt that certain animals were revered for their attributes by civilizations throughout the centuries. Seems peculiar to me that we would put other animals on a pedestal for having something we don't have or weren't given to us by the Almighty.

Yeah, had to derive self-esteem from their tool-making skills and merely envy the specialized attributes of critters. "If God wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings!". Apparently an anecdotally mediated "we can't have that feature in this life" distinction between human features and animal characteristics that they found satisfaction in maintaining even beyond the days of pagan zoolatry.

- - -
Reply
#3
(Nov 18, 2017 04:08 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: .....aren't we equipped with the best bodies that nature can offer, or perhaps something even better? Personally I'd love to possess the eyesight of an eagle, the speed of a cheetah, the physical strength of an elephant and..... you get my drift. For those who steadfastly believe, accept, know etc that God created us differently, so as to be a special occupant of the Earth, is there any reason why we play second fiddle to other creatures on this planet in regard to body design. 

I'm thinking God, should he exist, values intelligence more than physical prowess. Seems to me that God is generally accepted as some shapeless super intelligent entity and not one who throws about lightning bolts, although if called upon would have no problem doing so. If we are created in God's image and God is nothing more than a mind for instance, then it only stands to reason everything he does physically has nothing to do with having extraordinary physical attributes. 

This question may arise, will we be capable of someday engineering the supernatural body parts that God didn't deem necessary for us? Also, there isn't much doubt that certain animals were revered for their attributes by civilizations throughout the centuries. Seems peculiar to me that we would put other animals on a pedestal for having something we don't have or weren't given to us by the Almighty.

Quote: If we are created in God's image
hhmm...
do humans create things in their own image ?
what does the statement actually mean when translated from hebrew to latin to italian then to old english then to english  then back to latin then back to new english?

as for evidence of gods intent for humans and what she wanted &/or intended ...
if God is the creator then god created the Plague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_pl...t_outbreak
Quote:The first recorded epidemic affected the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and was named the Plague of Justinian after emperor Justinian I, who was infected but survived through extensive treatment.[16] [17] The pandemic resulted in the deaths of an estimated 25 million (6th century outbreak) to 50 million people (two centuries of recurrence).[18][19]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_pl...d_outbreak
Quote:In the Late Middle Ages (1340–1400) Europe experienced the most deadly disease outbreak in history when the Black Death, the infamous pandemic of bubonic plague, hit in 1347, killing a third of the human population.[where?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#Death_toll
Quote:There are no exact figures for the death toll; the rate varied widely by locality. In urban centres, the greater the population before the outbreak, the longer the duration of the period of abnormal mortality.[50] It killed some 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia.[1][2][3] According to medieval historian Philip Daileader in 2007:
Quote:The trend of recent research is pointing to a figure more like 45–50% of the European population dying during a four-year period. There is a fair amount of geographic variation. In Mediterranean Europe, areas such as Italy, the south of France and Spain, where plague ran for about four years consecutively, it was probably closer to 75–80% of the population. In Germany and England ... it was probably closer to 20%.[51]
A death rate as high as 60% in Europe has been suggested by Norwegian historian Ole Benedictow:
Quote:Detailed study of the mortality data available points to two conspicuous features in relation to the mortality caused by the Black Death: namely the extreme level of mortality caused by the Black Death, and the remarkable similarity or consistency of the level of mortality, from Spain in southern Europe to England in north-western Europe. The data is sufficiently widespread and numerous to make it likely that the Black Death swept away around 60 per cent of Europe's population. It is generally assumed that the size of Europe's population at the time was around 80 million. This implies that around 50 million people died in the Black Death.[52]
The most widely accepted estimate for the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran and Syria, during this time, is for a death rate of about a third.[53] The Black Death killed about 40% of Egypt's population.[54] Half of Paris's population of 100,000 people died. In Italy, the population of Florence was reduced from 110,000–120,000 inhabitants in 1338 down to 50,000 in 1351. At least 60% of the population of Hamburg and Bremen perished,[55] and a similar percentage of Londoners may have died from the disease as well.[42] While contemporary reports account of mass burial pits being created in response to the large numbers of dead, recent scientific investigations of a burial pit in Central London found well-preserved individuals to be buried in isolated, evenly spaced graves, suggesting at least some pre-planning and Christian burials at this time.[56] Before 1350, there were about 170,000 settlements in Germany, and this was reduced by nearly 40,000 by 1450.[57] In 1348, the plague spread so rapidly that before any physicians or government authorities had time to reflect upon its origins, about a third of the European population had already perished. In crowded cities, it was not uncommon for as much as 50% of the population to die.[33] The disease bypassed some areas, and the most isolated areas were less vulnerable to contagion. Monks and priests were especially hard-hit since they cared for victims of the Black Death.[58]
Reply
#4
RU, I suppose we could give credit to God for designing the plague. However in the interest of staying on topic I think it would suffice to say that for some reason our speciality did not include immunity from such a disease. IOW, God either did not deem it necessary, forgot, or erred by not taking the plague into account.

I was going to say this or any other deadly omission could also be taken as divine punishment. If viewed in this context then does it mean God imposed a limit upon our specialization? So if God desired, we could be really, really special. Seems that in our case, special only gets us so far in God's eyes, mainly a low degree of speciality.
Reply
#5
(Nov 18, 2017 04:08 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: .....aren't we equipped with the best bodies that nature can offer, or perhaps something even better? Personally I'd love to possess the eyesight of an eagle, the speed of a cheetah, the physical strength of an elephant and..... you get my drift.

I think that human beings are very well suited to the lives they lead, as multi-purpose beings whose specialty isn't flight or speed or power, but rather the ability to adapt to pretty much any new habitat, from tropical jungles to hunting mammoths on the arctic tundra (and from the bottom of the sea to outer space). We may not have the eyes of eagles, but we are probably better than eagles at closeup vision. We aren't as fast as cheetahs, but we can perform no end of tasks, not as well as specialized beings certainly, but we perform far better than they do when we are forced to improvise. What's more, we have evolved the ability to use tools and adapt the environment around us to our needs in ways no other organism can match. We may not fly as well as eagles, but our aircraft do.

Quote:For those who steadfastly believe, accept, know etc that God created us differently, so as to be a special occupant of the Earth, is there any reason why we play second fiddle to other creatures on this planet in regard to body design.

I don't believe in God, but just speaking in terms of evolution, arguably we don't. Like all the rest of the organisms around us, we are very well adapted to the kind of lives we lead.  Human beings certainly dominate the planet today in an unprecedented manner, unlike any other species that has ever done in the 4.5 billion years of Earth's history.
Reply
#6
Since creation and evolution are not truly at odds (only abiogensis conflicts with creation), there's little reason to doubt that god could have employed evolution, especially in a causal universe meant to facilitate free will.
Reply
#7
(Nov 19, 2017 07:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Since creation and evolution are not truly at odds (only abiogensis conflicts with creation), there's little reason to doubt that god could have employed evolution, especially in a causal universe meant to facilitate free will.

My two cents on creation & evolution.... 

I'm thinking and I stand to be corrected, that the first living organism(s) despite how they made their appearance, would have been perfectly adapted for survival in their environment....otherwise life didn't have a chance. It's not that life needed evolution to get started, it's the other way around. Not one divinely created living organism would need to evolve and I dare say neither would any that were spontaneously generated from non-living matter as theory has it.  Maybe there is some sort of transformation of inanimate matter that leads to the chemical processes of a living thing (the components are built prior to assembly) except I wouldn't call it evolution.

.
Reply
#8
(Nov 20, 2017 05:20 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Nov 19, 2017 07:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Since creation and evolution are not truly at odds (only abiogensis conflicts with creation), there's little reason to doubt that god could have employed evolution, especially in a causal universe meant to facilitate free will.

My two cents on creation & evolution.... 

I'm thinking and I stand to be corrected, that the first living organism(s) despite how they made their appearance, would have been perfectly adapted for survival in their environment....otherwise life didn't have a chance. It's not that life needed evolution to get started, it's the other way around. Not one divinely created living organism would need to evolve and I dare say neither would any that were spontaneously generated from non-living matter as theory has it.  Maybe there is some sort of transformation of inanimate matter that leads to the chemical processes of a living thing (the components are built prior to assembly) except I wouldn't call it evolution.

Abiogensis (life from inanimate matter) would likely postulate many short-lived organisms before any suitably fit for survival and reproduction would obtain. In which case, further iterative evolution would be expected. So perhaps only creation would immediately obtain a fit organism. But depending on the purpose of that creation, it's likely it was only minimally fit, motivating iterative improvement.
Reply
#9
(Nov 19, 2017 04:18 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: RU, I suppose we could give credit to God for designing the plague. However in the interest of staying on topic I think it would suffice to say that for some reason our speciality did not include immunity from such a disease. IOW, God either did not deem it necessary, forgot, or erred by not taking the plague into account.

I was going to say this or any other deadly omission could also be taken as divine punishment. If viewed in this context then does it mean God imposed a limit upon our specialization? So if God desired, we could be really, really special. Seems that in our case, special only gets us so far in God's eyes, mainly a low degree of speciality.

i gues this crosses over to the "realm of god" Vs "the realm of man".
is mans will equal to godly intent ?

some humans are more special than others in their bodily abilaties to survive some things.
a good example of a huge difference is free-divers who can slow their heart rates & stop their breathing, even some who might be capable of stopping their own heart.
people who live on low calorie intake vs people who live on high calorie intake...
bodys that use more or less of certain vitamins, minerals & nutrients etc...

is one capable of defining a difference between vegan & predominantly carnivorous humans ?
Reply
#10
Quote:Abiogensis (life from inanimate matter) would likely postulate many short-lived organisms before any suitably fit for survival and reproduction would obtain

I would think that short-lived still means life regardless of lifespan and would have to evolve to survive. 

Somehow inanimate matter became living matter.... Even that doesn't sound right to me. That would imply something really special occurred if it's a one time thing. What if life has nothing to do whatsoever with matter other than to use it to manifest itself? What if inanimate matter was never inanimate? Perhaps another look at matter is required, I don't know. I wonder if abiogenesis still takes place here, on or within the Earth?

Quote:I guess this crosses over to the "realm of god" Vs "the realm of man".

Not advocating God exists here, it may sound like it but there's times when I think I can understand why God was created by us. So if that's what you mean, God's realm is man's realm then I can agree with that Wink
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  CNN special on atheists Magical Realist 0 383 Mar 23, 2015 08:17 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)