What could a omnipotent God want with the worship of humans?

[dyresand]

Aristotle already did that for us and Aquinas made it conclusive, so there is no need to revisit the issue.

Philosophy from antiquity and from a 12th century clergy man doesn't trump modern science.

This may be enough for you, but it's no proof.

There is no proof of souls there is no logical proof only guesses of we have a soul since there is no proof of a human soul or animal soul or plant soul then we don't need a soul because our brain functions and the synapses and the electrical current in our brain also we have a highly evolved brain and we are sentient so we don't have souls. we are just brains and flesh walking around the planet trying to do good.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no logical reason as to why an omni faceted being would feel the desire to create anything at all, let alone a species of ants that it creates with attributes it then condemns and indeed punishes based on the fact that it created them and the ability of those beings to use/feel them.

[dyresand]

There is no logical reason as to why an omni faceted being would feel the desire to create anything at all, let alone a species of ants that it creates with attributes it then condemns and indeed punishes based on the fact that it created them and the ability of those beings to use/feel them.

The day the ants fight back against gods tyranny.

[abaris]

There is no logical reason as to why an omni faceted being would feel the desire to create anything at all, let alone a species of ants that it creates with attributes it then condemns and indeed punishes based on the fact that it created them and the ability of those beings to use/feel them.

If you attribute that being with the mindset of Dr Mengele or Ted Bundy it makes a certain kind of sense.

[Ryantology]

What do we want with children? Why do we care for them? why do we love them? Why do we spend our lives devoted to them in one form or fashion?

Why do we help them when they can't help themselves? Why don't we drown them when we're unhappy with their misbehavior?

We are made in God's image, meaning we share emotion value and even a sense of need. If you can relate to how we desire to bind with our kids you might have some sense as to why God would want us to share a bond with Him.

Unlike God, most parents understand that relationships aren't entirely one-sided, and they don't put conditions on the love they have for their children.

A good parent is understanding, forgiving, nurturing, and above all, unconditionally loving, because the person the child becomes as they grow is, in large part, the result of their upbringing.

[Cato]

you have to prove we have souls first before you say we have one.

Aristotle already did that for us and Aquinas made it conclusive, so there is no need to revisit the issue.

Also from Aristotle:
1. Slavery was okay
2. Women have a different number of teeth than men
3. Geocentrism
4. Eels don't reproduce

If you're going to invoke an authority, you might be careful to address his obvious fallibility. Understanding this doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong about souls, let me dismantle this part of your claim a bit.

Aristotle's idea of the soul extended directly from his adherence to the idea of forms in his metaphysics, and in no way approached the Platonic idea of the necessity of souls for the sake of eternal consequences. Without going into a lot of detail, Aristotle had a nested hierarchy of soul. He was also specific that the soul was not separable from the body. His idea of the immortal intellect was an invocation to employ the intellect as tapping into an immortal 'thinking ability' and is not nearly the same as stating there exists a disembodied soul.

[Jenny A]

Let's not lose sight of the purpose of this discussion of animal families or lack there of. You began here:

What do we want with children? Why do we care for them? why do we love them? Why do we spend our lives devoted to them in one form or fashion?

We are made in God's image, meaning we share emotion value and even a sense of need. If you can relate to how we desire to bind with our kids you might have some sense as to why God would want us to share a bond with Him.

The meat of your current post is this:

Remember I am not saying there are instances where simliarities can be found. What I am saying is that humanity's family structure is unique.

Being unique one of our hallmarks is the demand of worship/Directed or controls placed on expressions of love and respect from the older generation to the younger ones.

For you apes it is ok to smear poop on one another, not so much with jr. smearing poop on G-pa durning thanksgiving dinner. Even if Jr. is doing it to show that he loves g-pa.

emphasis mine

If I understand you correctly, you are saying 1) because our family structure is unique in that there is a mother and a father and extended interaction with children we love, we are created in god's image, and 2) our family structure implies controls on expressions of affection between the younger and older generation that are akin to worship.

I'll begin with your first contention that you can see we are created in god's image because we live in a family structure unique to humans. This is silly because god, as Christians propose him, does not live in a nuclear family structure. He claims only one begotten son and he shares the woman who gave birth to that son with another man (Joseph). Even if we think of god as father (where's mom by the way?) we end up in a extremely extended family involving siblings, cousins, half cousins, and cousins fifty times removed just like your referenced BBC article says many social animals do. Nor, as I was a pains to point out in our first round of posts does god treat humans like family. He does not provide for us, protects us, or keep the peace among as as a father would.

The second contention is no better. Prohibiting some kinds of expressions of love and affection, is not a demand for worship. It's a demand for personal autonomy and respect. Animals may not have Thanksgiving or feel the way you and I do about poo, but that doesn't imply worship. My girls aren't the only people I won't let throw poo on me. That is not a privilege I give to anyone, not that it come up much, or ever really. . . maybe poo throwing is more prevalent where you live?

If merely limiting the kinds of affection you are willing to receive is worship then I (and everyone else I know) demand worship of not only from my kids, but also my friends and neighbors, coworkers, and strangers on the street. And it goes way beyond poo. I limit the people I let hug me, kiss me, have sex with me, etc.

You are confusing basic respect for worship. And that kind of basic respect is enforced by a number of animals. If you mess with most animals' personal autonomy, they'll mess with alright. Dogs, cats, horses, and other animals we interact with like some forms of interaction and not others and they are not shy to let you know which is which.

Other animals also place limits on how their progeny treats them. If you've ever watched a bitch with puppies, you have probably noticed that she nips puppies who annoy her and the puppies do learn just how far they can go with mom. This social behavior is part of the reason dogs make such good trainable pets.

Now should you persist is believing that not throwing poo is a form of worship, and that not throwing it is a result of our "unique" family structure, let take a minute to look at what your BBC article really says about it. First it notes that most animals don't live in families:

[M]ost animals don’t live with their parents or siblings; animals that hatch from eggs often never meet their parents, and many that are raised by their mother never know their father.

Fewer still are raised by both biological parents, in the company of their siblings.

And even fewer of those have segregated family units like we humans do, living in families into which only the closest relatives are invited.

Most animals either live alone, or spend their days with half-siblings, uncles, cousins, cousins many times removed or a herd or flock of genetic strangers.

It also notes that while there are many types of human families (a number of different types of nuclear families are depicted in the Bible involving single wife, and multiple even hundreds of wives, and wives plus concubine families):

There are many types of human family, involving step-parents, foster parents, adopted parents and children, half-siblings and same-sex couples, but we generally stick to small tightly-bonded nuclear family groups.

That I don't dispute that. Nor, as I pointed out above do I see that it leads to either a likeness to god, or a need for worship.

Nor is our family structure unique in having a male and female plus offspring:

Gibbons form groups of a single male and female with offspring, with each pair monopolising territory. Orangutans live alone, with males mating with multiple females that wander into their territory. Chimps form promiscuous groups involving many males and females, while gorillas live in cohesive groups that usually include one mating male and many females.

emphasis mine

What is unique among primates about the human family structure is it involves nuclear families living in a larger social group without overt physical competition for females:

In humans, the family system allows groups to exchange males and females, and gain new mating partners, without aggressively competing for them.

That exchange of partners might have allowed human groups to start to collaborate rather than compete with one another.

Such cooperation might have been the building blocks of human society, which differs dramatically from other primates.

So it's the social agreement that your wife is yours and not your neighbors even though you are living cheek to jowl with other men that makes humans social structure unique among primates. I fail to see how that either makes us created in god's image or has any worship implications whatsoever.

Nor does typical human family structure the only kind that promotes inter-generational affection.

Not surprisingly there are many species, admittedly mostly primates, in which continued the support of older sisters and mothers is the primary factor in determining whether a first time mother will successfully raise her young to adulthood.

Noit according to the BBC Artical here. It says:
"New research into primate societies is helping to answer that very question; shedding light on the origins of the human family."

The article says nothing whatsoever about primate matriarchal aide and affection. But it does exist: Primates Reveal the Value of Grandmothershttp://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/...Among.html

The [BBC] work attempts to explain how the family unit evolved, and why humans have different family structures to our closest relatives, the other great apes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/wonder...mily.shtml
While there are similarities our family structure remain unique.

But as I noted above, it's the nuclear mating group within the greater social group that is unique and not the nuclear family.

And there are other species that do similar things. Elephant herds are matriarchies run by the great-grandma.

Source material?

http://www.elephantsforever.co.za/matria...d=noscripthttp://www.ifaw.org/united-states/node/2842

---

Let's not lose sight of the purpose of this discussion of animal families or lack there of. You began here:

What do we want with children? Why do we care for them? why do we love them? Why do we spend our lives devoted to them in one form or fashion?

We are made in God's image, meaning we share emotion value and even a sense of need. If you can relate to how we desire to bind with our kids you might have some sense as to why God would want us to share a bond with Him.

The meat of your current post is this:

Remember I am not saying there are instances where simliarities can be found. What I am saying is that humanity's family structure is unique.

Being unique one of our hallmarks is the demand of worship/Directed or controls placed on expressions of love and respect from the older generation to the younger ones.

For you apes it is ok to smear poop on one another, not so much with jr. smearing poop on G-pa durning thanksgiving dinner. Even if Jr. is doing it to show that he loves g-pa.

emphasis mine

If I understand you correctly, you are saying 1) because our family structure is unique in that there is a mother and a father and extended interaction with children we love, we are created in god's image, and 2) our family structure implies controls on expressions of affection between the younger and older generation that are akin to worship.

I'll begin with your first contention that you can see we are created in god's image because we live in a family structure unique to humans. This is silly because god, as Christians propose him, does not live in a nuclear family structure. He claims only one begotten son and he shares the woman who gave birth to that son with another man (Joseph). Even if we think of god as father (where's mom by the way?) we end up in a extremely extended family involving siblings, cousins, half cousins, and cousins fifty times removed just like your referenced BBC article says many social animals do. Nor, as I was a pains to point out in our first round of posts does god treat humans like family. He does not provide for us, protects us, or keep the peace among as as a father would.

The second contention is no better. Prohibiting some kinds of expressions of love and affection, is not a demand for worship. It's a demand for personal autonomy and respect. Animals may not have Thanksgiving or feel the way you and I do about poo, but that doesn't imply worship. My girls aren't the only people I won't let throw poo on me. That is not a privilege I give to anyone, not that it come up much, or ever really. . . maybe poo throwing is more prevalent where you live?

If merely limiting the kinds of affection you are willing to receive is worship then I (and everyone else I know) demand worship of not only from my kids, but also my friends and neighbors, coworkers, and strangers on the street. And it goes way beyond poo. I limit the people I let hug me, kiss me, have sex with me, etc.

You are confusing basic respect for worship. And that kind of basic respect is enforced by a number of animals. If you mess with most animals' personal autonomy, they'll mess with alright. Dogs, cats, horses, and other animals we interact with like some forms of interaction and not others and they are not shy to let you know which is which.

Other animals also place limits on how their progeny treats them. If you've ever watched a bitch with puppies, you have probably noticed that she nips puppies who annoy her and the puppies do learn just how far they can go with mom. This social behavior is part of the reason dogs make such good trainable pets.

Now should you persist is believing that not throwing poo is a form of worship, and that not throwing it is a result of our "unique" family structure, let take a minute to look at what your BBC article really says about it. First it notes that most animals don't live in families:

[M]ost animals don’t live with their parents or siblings; animals that hatch from eggs often never meet their parents, and many that are raised by their mother never know their father.

Fewer still are raised by both biological parents, in the company of their siblings.

And even fewer of those have segregated family units like we humans do, living in families into which only the closest relatives are invited.

Most animals either live alone, or spend their days with half-siblings, uncles, cousins, cousins many times removed or a herd or flock of genetic strangers.

It also notes that while there are many types of human families (a number of different types of nuclear families are depicted in the Bible involving single wife, and multiple even hundreds of wives, and wives plus concubine families):

There are many types of human family, involving step-parents, foster parents, adopted parents and children, half-siblings and same-sex couples, but we generally stick to small tightly-bonded nuclear family groups.

That I don't dispute that. Nor, as I pointed out above do I see that it leads to either a likeness to god, or a need for worship.

Nor is our family structure unique in having a male and female plus offspring:

Gibbons form groups of a single male and female with offspring, with each pair monopolising territory. Orangutans live alone, with males mating with multiple females that wander into their territory. Chimps form promiscuous groups involving many males and females, while gorillas live in cohesive groups that usually include one mating male and many females.

emphasis mine

What is unique among primates about the human family structure is it involves nuclear families living in a larger social group without overt physical competition for females:

In humans, the family system allows groups to exchange males and females, and gain new mating partners, without aggressively competing for them.

That exchange of partners might have allowed human groups to start to collaborate rather than compete with one another.

Such cooperation might have been the building blocks of human society, which differs dramatically from other primates.

So it's the social agreement that your wife is yours and not your neighbors even though you are living cheek to jowl with other men that makes humans social structure unique among primates. I fail to see how that either makes us created in god's image or has any worship implications whatsoever.

Nor does typical human family structure the only kind that promotes inter-generational affection.

Not surprisingly there are many species, admittedly mostly primates, in which continued the support of older sisters and mothers is the primary factor in determining whether a first time mother will successfully raise her young to adulthood.

Noit according to the BBC Artical here. It says:
"New research into primate societies is helping to answer that very question; shedding light on the origins of the human family."

The article says nothing whatsoever about primate matriarchal aide and affection. But it does exist: Primates Reveal the Value of Grandmothershttp://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/...Among.html

The [BBC] work attempts to explain how the family unit evolved, and why humans have different family structures to our closest relatives, the other great apes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/wonder...mily.shtml
While there are similarities our family structure remain unique.[/Quote]

But as I noted above, it's the nuclear mating group within the greater social group that is unique and not the nuclear family.

And there are other species that do similar things. Elephant herds are matriarchies run by the great-grandma.

Source material?

http://www.elephantsforever.co.za/matria...d=noscripthttp://www.ifaw.org/united-states/node/2842

[Drich]

I'm not saying you can't make an arguement for it, what I am saying is that the hguman family model is not consistant with the evolutionary model shared by ever other species on the planet. The BBC artical I referenced supported this fact and that "the Human family structure biologically speaking very novel."

Noit according to the BBC Artical here. It says:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/wonder...mily.shtml
While there are similarities our family structure remain unique.


Source material?

Remember I am not saying there are instances where simliarities can be found. What I am saying is that humanity's family structure is unique.

Being unique one of our hallmarks is the demand of worship/Directed or controls placed on expressions of love and respect from the older generation to the younger ones.

For you apes it is ok to smear poop on one another, not so much with jr. smearing poop on G-pa durning thanksgiving dinner. Even if Jr. is doing it to show that he loves g-pa.

---

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bioc...e-says-yes
Done, next!

not really done http://www.wired.com/2007/03/robert_lanza_do/
explains how is for the most part wrong.

So wired

Sorry.. So wired magazine, a magazine, a 'consumer's buyers guide' is the magazine you use counter what psychology today a publication compiled by leaders/Doctors in the field of psychology...

Do you not see a major problem with your attemp at a rebuttal?

---

Philosophy from antiquity and from a 12th century clergy man doesn't trump modern science.

This may be enough for you, but it's no proof.

There is no proof of souls there is no logical proof only guesses of we have a soul since there is no proof of a human soul or animal soul or plant soul then we don't need a soul because our brain functions and the synapses and the electrical current in our brain also we have a highly evolved brain and we are sentient so we don't have souls. we are just brains and flesh walking around the planet trying to do good.

You were afraid to read the artical I posted weren't you?

---

There is no logical reason as to why an omni faceted being would feel the desire to create anything at all, let alone a species of ants that it creates with attributes it then condemns and indeed punishes based on the fact that it created them and the ability of those beings to use/feel them.

Have you considered your defination of "Omni faceted being" is in Error?

[Heywood]

The problems with this analogy are myriad.

1) Children of any species will generally grow up into something resembling their parents. You and I will not grow up to be omnipotent beings.

Humans can create life. Craig Venter's mycoplasma laboratorium is an example of it. Human can create evolutionary systems....you can find numerous examples of simulated evolution on the internet. Human's create realities in which they are pretty much omnipotent. World of Warcraft is one such reality....SecondLife is another. Humans can create intellects....IBM's Watson is an example of a rudimentary intellect.

Now one day, humans will create intellects, put them in a reality of their own design, and watch them interact and evolve. We might even interfere in their world....just to fuck with them. In a very real sense humans are growing up to be gods.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no logical reason as to why an omni faceted being would feel the desire to create anything at all, let alone a species of ants that it creates with attributes it then condemns and indeed punishes based on the fact that it created them and the ability of those beings to use/feel them.

Have you considered your defination of "Omni faceted being" is in Error?

I'm looking forward to seeing how you re-define these omni-facets to remove any paradoxes inherent in any omni-facet that are a part of your religious beliefs.

Off you go.