We don't know that and considering one tsunami can wipe out over a quarter million people in one day does not show it is the best planet for human life. With billions of stars in a single galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe, the chances are exceptionally good there are many Earth type planets, perhaps far more inhabitable for humans than Earth itself. We don't need religions at all, we are far better off without them.
But, if human beings had wings, then that would be our knowledge of human beings and we would not question it. Regardless, it still does not negate or validate the concept of human beings being complete or incomplete.
A human being is complete, regardless of physical prowess. An incomplete human being can not exist. That’s what I mean by complete or incomplete.
I'm sorry Jan, but that doesn't explain what complete or incomplete means in regards to human beings. You need to justify the descriptions with details on what exactly is a complete human being and what exactly is an incomplete human being. You have not accomplished this as yet.
A complete human being, is a human being. An incomplete human being is not a human being. If we get to the point where human beings can create a humanoid Android, with state of the art AI, to the point where we can’t readily tell the difference. That will not be a human being, even if we think it is.
But Jan, that's like saying an apple is an apple and and orange is an orange without justifying what an apple is and what an orange is, or the differences between them. Okay, but how does that show human beings are complete?
Because I assume you know the difference. If I thought you didn’t, I would make the distinction. You are a human being, you were brought up by human beings. You were taught by human beings. I assume you know what a human being is. Someone can only be a human being if they are complete. If I’m wrong, then please correct me.
You’re a good example of stubbornness and pride. You know exactly what I mean, and you cannot refute it but, because you think I’m religious, and you don’t like religion, you allow that to cloud your judgement, and bring conflict to the table. It’s pathetic. Can’t you just give up your prejudice in this instant. It serves no purpose.
I already did. You said that human BODIES were perfect. Physical BODIES. Here's exactly what you said: "Essentially we are perfection. These body suits are perfectly complete in their design." Body suits. Not souls. Not personhood. Physical bodies, the covering outside the entity we call a human being. Then I pointed out that they weren't perfectly complete. You tried to argue against that, making some asinine analogy to an Iphone. Finally you gave up and admitted "We’re all physically incomplete." Great! You got it! But then due to your ignorance or your stubbornness (not sure which) you tried to change the argument and claim "no, I was talking about being a complete HUMAN BEING." Maybe you're so ignorant that you are not aware you were doing it? If so, now you know. I have no problem with religion. I do have a problem with ignorance.
He's exhibited it pretty well, I think. The second law of thermodynamics ensures nothing is complete, therefore it is complete, since "complete" = "not complete" in his logic.
All things made of matter come into and go out of being. The human body is a thing. Therefore it comes into and goes out of being. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be human. If it isn’t human, it’s not complete.
