Evidence for God from Science

Simple question, what exactly would you call "playing god" and why shouldn't we? I see no problem with all the things we do, would you call irrigation playing god? Because irrigation is not natural is it! its artificial tinkering.

So first we need a acceptable definition, next we need a Answer.

Ps. G2g, helping someone@farm

I, quite frankly, see "playing God" as viewing the cosmos as your own, intellectual property; people, planets, nebulae, etc.. To put simply, viewing everything of everyone your own as if it is your world, and acting upon it. Like, let's say someone became close enough, through some means, to omnipotence, and tried altering the course of every little thing that happens from then on. That would essentially, from my point of view, be playing God, as bluntly, you are acting upon others as though you were God. That is, at the base, the term's definition.

Altering nature is not playing God, but in many cases, immoral. If one is to alter the nature of nature, it may or may not be. If it is, out of strict necessity, to prevent it from collapsing, I don't see it as playing God. But if, out of no logical means needed, it is. Nature is not the plaything of humans, or any other sentient being in this world; it is an array of vastly complicated, self-replicating machinery designed to support life. The more people ration it out, the more they play God.

Likewise, I do not see creating an artificial ecosystem, or even world as playing God. Such things are made by man, and do not interfere significantly with nature, strictly speaking.

I do not see it as playing God either to, for instance, replace someone's body largely, or entirely with artificial constructs. I do, however, see it as completely illogical, as the human body is a very sophisticated machine already; replacing components of it with artificial components will have very little benefit outside of prosthesis. Each organ, for example, is composed of various tissues, which are comprised of various cells, which in turn, are comprised of various smaller pieces of machinery, which in turn are elaborate proteins, which are made out of different atoms, which are, in themselves very complicated and made out of smaller components. Any artificial component would need to not only find a way to circumvent rejection, but also be more effective than natural components while providing at least the same level of functionality for any such thing to be practical. While it may be possible to, in short, "advance" humanity to a higher level of physical being, it is indeed playing God to force such a thing upon persons, especially all of human kind...

...This is not accounting for the facts that not all functions of the human body are accounted for or understood, humans fail even more miserably while being "assisted" by machinery(or worse, a hybrid of one), human greed and ignorance, humans are inherently stupid, not to mention illogical, and dare I say evil. And don't forget the fact that there are all sorts of ideas and idealists who would use such technology as a means to further encompass and control all that lives and exhibits signs of sapience.


As for if "playing God" is wrong, yes, by my definition. No one man, nor group owns nature nor the cosmos, nor should any such groups or people attempt to or act as such. When humans judge themselves as being equal with God, whether by those words or no, folks with morals like to call this "evil". Largely because of people acting that way shows how overgrown and self centred their egos are. Humans aren't on par with God, and shouldn't make-belief with their overgrown toys.

In my opinion, someone could build a planet and not really be playing God, so long as he understands his boundaries. Though it is, of course, playing God if he goes something like "AND I, [name], WILL BE GOD OF THE NEW WORLD" over the giant, vaguely spherical rock he managed to make. Though if he made a myriad of ecosystems, and whatnot, he still wouldn't be playing God- though he'd have enormous responsibilities humans aren't exactly capable of. There is a very clear line between playing God and getting ahead of yourself, or downright being stupid.

And if I didn't clarify, playing God is wrong because it's delusional, and humans aren't omnipotent. By omnipotent, I mean as in "capable of complete control of every thing that ever existed in any continuum, universe, cosmos, etc." Imagine a microbe living in someone's front yard to proclaim Earth as his sovereign empire, and enslave all other microbes in the yard to build a series of giant rocks for him. It's not playing God, but it's certainly egotistical. And it's not egotistical for God to mention or talk about what he can do, because he can. Likewise, It's not egotistical for a human to talk about how he can walk or pick up things with his opposable thumbs and feet, because it's not boastful; it's not saying humans are more capable than in reality.

I'm sure you find a lot of varying definitions of what 'playing god' means. "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Gen. 1:28

I would define playing god as self-soveriengty.

I see no problem with all the things we do

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there.

Murderers and abortionists also 'play god' by determining who lives and dies.

Kristoffer wrote:Simple question, what exactly would you call "playing god" and why shouldn't we? I see no problem with all the things we do, would you call irrigation playing god? Because irrigation is not natural is it! its artificial tinkering.

So first we need a acceptable definition, next we need a Answer.

Ps. G2g, helping someone@farm

According to Scripture, God is our Creator but not necessarily our Father. Jesus told the religious hypocrites that the Devil was their father because he is the father of lies and lying (John 8:44). Of course, He was speaking spiritually. He also told Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God and that it must be a spiritual birth (John 3:3-6).
Then we are also told in John 1:12-13 that as many as truly received Jesus by believing (putting their faith in) Him are given the power to become sons of God (of course there are many more scriptures regarding the subject). So, we can sum it up this way: only those who put their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour are born again spiritually making them sons of God with the right to call Him their Father.

The one thing that children inherit from their father is his nature. Those who are truly sons of God must inherit His nature which makes them think and act differently: it is natural for them to be in agreement with His thoughts and motives and to want to act accordingly.

Now, as far as "playing god". People generally use that phrase to refer to actions taken by humans that directly challenge the purpose of God for creating the earth and man, or when a person is presumptuous enough to take actions that may require far greater knowledge and wisdom than they have and may have far greater implications and consequences than they can comprehend. Of course, a classic example is when one human kills another.

jlay wrote: Murderers and abortionists also 'play god' by determining who lives and dies.

What makes a ball of cells so special anyway? There are sets of circumstances where you can say, hey this is okay. God aborts things all the time, what else would you call a miscarriage?

Maybe we should go back to being nomadic hunter gatherers, maybe?

Kristoffer wrote:

jlay wrote: Murderers and abortionists also 'play god' by determining who lives and dies.

What makes a ball of cells so special anyway? There are sets of circumstances where you can say, hey this is okay. God aborts things all the time, what else would you call a miscarriage?

Maybe we should go back to being nomadic hunter gatherers, maybe?

God as the giver of life has the right to take life. Man is not the giver of life and does not have that right, unless instructed by God to do so.

truthman wrote:unless instructed by God to do so.

I never said anything about taking lives, taking lives is almost always unacceptable and i would not listen to god if he told me to murder someone in cold blood. Yep i would rebel if i was told to kill another human being without a good reason.

Kristoffer wrote:

truthman wrote:unless instructed by God to do so.

I never said anything about taking lives, taking lives is almost always unacceptable and i would not listen to god if he told me to murder someone in cold blood. Yep i would rebel if i was told to kill another human being without a good reason.

And then zapped by a lightning bolt 5 seconds later.

Kristoffer wrote:

truthman wrote:unless instructed by God to do so.

I never said anything about taking lives, taking lives is almost always unacceptable and i would not listen to god if he told me to murder someone in cold blood. Yep i would rebel if i was told to kill another human being without a good reason.

A fetus is alive. Watch a video of a fetus in the womb sometime. It lives and moves and feels pain. Killing it is taking a life: an innocent life.

God would never tell anyone to kill another human being without a good reason.

What makes a ball of cells so special anyway?

Uhhhhhh, you're one. Stubborn.

Kristoffer wrote:

truthman wrote:unless instructed by God to do so.

I never said anything about taking lives, taking lives is almost always unacceptable and i would not listen to god if he told me to murder someone in cold blood. Yep i would rebel if i was told to kill another human being without a good reason.

You seem to always assume, by what's in your posts, that God is bad or cold. Why would He tell someone to kill someone else without a good reason?

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good,
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

I saw elsewhere that you may read Mere Christianity. That would be very good, on many counts. But there may be something in there on our role in obeying our government (not when the government goes against God's will, however), even in the military. I know Lewis writes of it in different places (and yes, he served during WWII and lived through it in general).

Kristoffer wrote:

jlay wrote: Murderers and abortionists also 'play god' by determining who lives and dies.

What makes a ball of cells so special anyway? There are sets of circumstances where you can say, hey this is okay. God aborts things all the time, what else would you call a miscarriage?

Maybe we should go back to being nomadic hunter gatherers, maybe?

you seem to not know that most abortions occur when the fetus is not a "ball of cells" but when they have many organs like we do such as a beating heart

goldmoor wrote:

Kristoffer wrote:

jlay wrote: Murderers and abortionists also 'play god' by determining who lives and dies.

What makes a ball of cells so special anyway? There are sets of circumstances where you can say, hey this is okay. God aborts things all the time, what else would you call a miscarriage?

Maybe we should go back to being nomadic hunter gatherers, maybe?

you seem to not know that most abortions occur when the fetus is not a "ball of cells" but when they have many organs like we do such as a beating heart

Hi Goldmoor this is an old thread and Kristoffer has not been here for quite some time, but I do agree with your point.


Dan