A world with a loving God.

[(Q)]

By your logic, nothing will ever be complete.
The first phones did what they were supposed to do. I didn’t hear anybody complaining about them not having cameras. Did you?

You still have not defined the terms complete/incomplete in regards to your explanation, so it still makes no sense.

I am complaining because I can't fly or outrun a tiger or out-swim a shark, hence I am incomplete based on your logic. In order to fly, I need an airplane, in order to outrun a tiger, I need a dirt bike, in order to out-swim a shark, I need a boat. Therefore, humans are incomplete based on your logic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure they will be complete. If a phone is intended to take pictures, but does not have a camera, it is incomplete. If it is not intended to take pictures, then it is complete without a camera.

So why are you arguing against my point?

Likewise, if we are intended to stand upright, breathe and eat, then we are incomplete. If you claim that humans were NOT intended to do those things, then you could claim we are complete.

Humans are intended to breathe.
All humans breathe (even those that need support). Any humans that don’t breath, are dead. Humans die, that makes them complete.
Not all humans can Stan upright, for whatever reason. That does not make them incomplete.
Some humans, for whatever reason, may not be able to eat solid food, and have to rely on liquid food. They are not incomplete human beings.
Do you agree or disagree?

 

[billvon]

So why are you arguing against my point?

I don't think you understand my point.

Humans are intended to breathe.

Then they are incomplete; they have a deadly kluge that reroutes air through your larynx. Give evolution a few hundred thousand years and it will fix that problem.

Not all humans can Stan upright, for whatever reason. That does not make them incomplete.

A human without legs is complete? I disagree.

Some humans, for whatever reason, may not be able to eat solid food, and have to rely on liquid food. They are not incomplete human beings.

A human without teeth is complete? I disagree.

Again, why not stick with the definitions of words, instead of trying to twist and distort them to support your religious beliefs?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You still have not defined the terms complete/incomplete in regards to your explanation, so it still makes no sense.

Aside from the fact that you defined it in your previous post, I believe all who hear the word, on this platform, know what it means.

I am complaining because I can't fly or outrun a tiger or out-swim a shark, hence I am incomplete based on your logic. In order to fly, I need an airplane, in order to outrun a tiger, I need a dirt bike, in order to out-swim a shark, I need a boat. Therefore, humans are incomplete based on your logic.

You are allowed to complain because you are a human being, and you have that capacity.
By your logic, there is no such thing as completion. So even if you could do all the things you mention in your list (as a human), you still wouldn’t be complete. So please explain, not define, what it is to be a complete human being?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then they are incomplete; they have a deadly kluge that reroutes air through your larynx. Give evolution a few hundred thousand years and it will fix that problem.

A disability does not render a human incomplete.
Let’s say in a few hundred years they fix that disability, would that make the person complete? Or would there be other stuff you could think of?

A human without legs is complete? I disagree.

Again, by that logic, a human who can’t run as fast as Usain Bolt is incomplete. Also Usain Bolt is incomplete because he can’t run faster than his own world record.

A human without teeth is complete? I disagree.

Again, why not stick with the definitions of words, instead of trying to twist and distort them to support your religious beliefs?

A human without teeth is unable to chew. Granted. But is still a complete human being.
An incomplete human being cannot exist, and still be referred to as a “human being”.

Why don’t you stick with the definition of words instead of trying to twist and distort them to support your religious beliefs?

 

[billvon]

A disability does not render a human incomplete.

Missing legs renders a person physically incomplete. By definition. Legally they are, of course, like any other person. (And I am using the term "physically complete" so you don't run off into the "but he could be mentally just fine!" rabbit hole, or some other Ardenonsense.)

Let’s say in a few hundred years they fix that disability, would that make the person complete? Or would there be other stuff you could think of?

You mean growing him new legs? Yes, then they would be physically complete.

Again, by that logic, a human who can’t run as fast as Usain Bolt is incomplete.

Nope. A couch potato with his legs still attached is physically complete.

A human without teeth is unable to chew. Granted. But is still a complete human being.

He is missing his teeth. He is physically incomplete. That's what the definition of the word is. He is, of course, legally a person.

Why don’t you stick with the definition of words instead of trying to twist and distort them to support your religious beliefs?

Just FYI you are looking like an idiot here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Missing legs renders a person physically incomplete.

We’re all physically incomplete, compared to other humans. It doesn’t mean we are incomplete human beings.

Just FYI you are looking like an idiot here.

Really?
I’m not the one rendering disabled people as sub-human. If that’s cool, I’m happy to be the idiot.

 

[billvon]

We’re all physically incomplete

So we are perfectly complete and we are incomplete.

This is what I mean by twisting and distorting things to support your religious beliefs.

I’m not the one rendering disabled people as sub-human. If that’s cool, I’m happy to be the idiot.

Since neither one of us is doing that, you are welcome to be the idiot.

 

[(Q)]

Aside from the fact that you defined it in your previous post, I believe all who hear the word, on this platform, know what it means.

Yes, I put up the definition for your perusal.

You are allowed to complain because you are a human being, and you have that capacity.
By your logic, there is no such thing as completion. So even if you could do all the things you mention in your list (as a human), you still wouldn’t be complete. So please explain, not define, what it is to be a complete human being?

Sure, I'l take a stab at that. Notice in the definition of complete is the word, "necessary". And, as you mentioned above, it's necessary for humans to breathe in order to survive. That said, it is therefore necessary humans should be able to outrun or out-swim predators, but we can't, we should be able to fly in order to survive natural disasters, like flying away from a tsunami or earthquake. Since Earth's resources can't sustain an ever growing population forever, we'll either have to survive underwater in the oceans or colonize other planets, so it's necessary for humans to be able to survive underwater and in space where there is no atmosphere. Further, we'll need to survive dangerous radiation in space and the toxic atmospheres of other planets. It will be necessary for humans to fly to those planets and perhaps other galaxies. In short, it is necessary for humans to be able to survive anything and everything the universe can throw at us. But, we can't.

Therefore, humans are far from being complete, based on the definition and your logic of humans surviving.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, I put up the definition for your perusal.



Sure, I'l take a stab at that. Notice in the definition of complete is the word, "necessary". And, as you mentioned above, it's necessary for humans to breathe in order to survive. That said, it is therefore necessary humans should be able to outrun or out-swim predators, but we can't, we should be able to fly in order to survive natural disasters, like flying away from a tsunami or earthquake. Since Earth's resources can't sustain an ever growing population forever, we'll either have to survive underwater in the oceans or colonize other planets, so it's necessary for humans to be able to survive underwater and in space where there is no atmosphere. Further, we'll need to survive dangerous radiation in space and the toxic atmospheres of other planets. It will be necessary for humans to fly to those planets and perhaps other galaxies. In short, it is necessary for humans to be able to survive anything and everything the universe can throw at us. But, we can't.

Therefore, humans are far from being complete, based on the definition and your logic of humans surviving.

How long do you think it will take to colonise in space? Baring in mind Kim Jung Yong has fired 13 missles last year because he likes explosions, the bigger the better. Donald Trump is threatening with nukes Iran(which will never happen). How long till we even get together as a race, no war etc. we would have to share resources for ships and stuff. We need to learn a lot more behind the science. We need divine intervention.

 

[davewhite04]

Sure they will be complete. If a phone is intended to take pictures, but does not have a camera, it is incomplete. If it is not intended to take pictures, then it is complete without a camera.

Likewise, if we are intended to stand upright, breathe and eat, then we are incomplete. If you claim that humans were NOT intended to do those things, then you could claim we are complete.

Your example is incomplete. A phone is bound by software updates(most of them, apart from the shitty old kind people are actually buying, and finding they break after a few months. Do not say you have one of them phones and it's complete(no update required, probably why they're shite.) If the phone is old with no more support, no more updates then gee, we have a very reliable and complete phone. These are the best phones if you're on a budget. If the battery is dud they cost coppers on ebay. Software should be very reliable.

 

[(Q)]

How long do you think it will take to colonise in space? Baring in mind Kim Jung Yong has fired 13 missles last year because he likes explosions, the bigger the better. Donald Trump is threatening with nukes Iran(which will never happen). How long till we even get together as a race, no war etc. we would have to share resources for ships and stuff. We need to learn a lot more behind the science.

You may be missing the point of the discussion, it's not about the science, it's about the human body and it's inability to just leave this planet and travel to other planets to survive there without the need of spaceships or any other technologies that would help us survive. Jan believes we are complete, but we are far from being complete if we can't survive in our universe.

We need divine intervention.

If we were created by divine intervention, then we would be able to survive everything the universe could throw at us.

 

[davewhite04]

You may be missing the point of the discussion, it's not about the science, it's about the human body and it's inability to just leave this planet and travel to other planets to survive there without the need of spaceships or any other technologies that would help us survive. Jan believes we are complete, but we are far from being complete if we can't survive in our universe.



If we were created by divine intervention, then we would be able to survive everything the universe could throw at us.

This planet can be paradise, probably the best planet for human life in the universe. What chance is there of another planet exactly the same as this? Do you like the variation of the species? This planet has potential, 80% of the water is unexlored, imagine how many cities could be built there? Once we have mastered recycling. The stars are nice to look at.

Depends what religion. I find religion puts God in a box, if we got rid of the religions who have confused everyone, then maybe it'll be easier to connect to God(God of the bible or source.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So we are perfectly complete and we are incomplete.

Our design is perfectly complete.

This is what I mean by twisting and distorting things to support your religious beliefs.

Poor you. You are so proud, you won’t accept when you’re wrong.

Since neither one of us is doing that, you are welcome to be the idiot.

You’re doing that. But I am very sure you don’t mean to. However, because you are so desperate to defeat the obvious truth, because of your religion, you are prepared to go there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Q

A human being is not a “ human being” because we can, or can’t outrun a lion. Or breath in a vacuum.
Just because a human being is born without arms, legs, or eyes, doesn’t make him/her any less of human being.
Nobody is equal to another person when it comes to human abilities. The one thing all human beings have in common is that we are human beings.
Yours sincerely
A human being

 

[Jan Ardena]

Depends what religion. I find religion puts God in a box, if we got rid of the religions who have confused everyone, then maybe it'll be easier to connect to God(God of the bible or source.

That’s not correct Dave.
But I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which religion puts “God in a box?”

 

[davewhite04]

That’s not correct Dave.
But I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which religion puts “God in a box?”

All of them. It's called a book.

 

[(Q)]

@Q

A human being is not a “ human being” because we can, or can’t outrun a lion. Or breath in a vacuum.
Just because a human being is born without arms, legs, or eyes, doesn’t make him/her any less of human being.

There is no baseline for what a human being is, should or should not be. Hence, there is no reason why a human being couldn't outrun a lion or not be able to breathe in a vacuum, or couldn't fly to another planet entirely on their own. That's why being "complete/incomplete" has no real meaning.

Nobody is equal to another person when it comes to human abilities. The one thing all human beings have in common is that we are human beings.
Yours sincerely
A human being

Sure, but the concept of a "complete/incomplete" human being has no meaning, that is, unless you can explain that to us.

 

[Jan Ardena]

All of them. It's called a book.

Maybe you’re missing something.
I’m not dismissing your response. I respect your position. I respect most positions, be they genuinely atheist, agnostic, or theist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is no baseline for what a human being is, should or should not be. Hence, there is no reason why a human being couldn't outrun a lion or not be able to breathe in a vacuum, or couldn't fly to another planet entirely on their own. That's why being "complete/incomplete" has no real meaning.

Think about it though.
We both know what a human being is.
We would both question the validity of a human being if he/she could fly, outrun a lion, or breath in a vacuum. Why? Because we both know the there are no human beings, to our knowledge that can do that.