Never said we weren't a different kind of widget. But, at base, a widget we are.
The neocortex has allowed us to dominate the planet, yes. It has all sorts of wonderful features and unique abilities, yes. But I think you missed my simple point. We dominate the planet because we can. How'd that happen? Science provides all sorts of lovely answers and data. Limitless and endless conjecture and projection does as well. The possibilities of wondering and testing are limitless. It will never stop because we continue to evolve. Isn't that cool?
OK, gotchya there, but the juries out on evolution being cool. I'm a frikin alcoholic after all, so something screwed something up somewhere for sure
!
What you said begs a question (argument) made to me not long ago: If we evolved to become sentient, cognitive beings with developing reason and moral compasses, why are we the only species to have managed the feat? Every organism on the planet evolved as we did, no slower and no faster, and under identical conditions. Why aren't there Wallabees with terrific singing voices auditioning for American Idol, or Killer whales that can ferry me to Vancouver Island for a small fee?
I get it.
limitless.
Bear in mind, I'm simply playing devil's advocate here, just cuz I love this kind of discussion. I don't necessarily buy a word of what I just said.
I do get your original point now, after reading this reply.
What makes you think He is being cruel or not? Are not those human attributes? Is that not humanizing God? Whether it is or isn't is fine. Again, the wonder and unknowingness of it all is absolutely limitless.
Well you could say this boils down to a loving God (as so often described) would never allow such suffering on His children. We were taught as children that he is merciful, just, fair, and loving. You'd think a deity of that description would step in and put the ol' kybosh to all this nonsense. Another case of devil's advocate on my part, since I haven't believed in THAT God since I was 11 years old. There's nothing to ponder there at all IMO, it's a concept entirely borne of superstition and from a need to control our ancestors from living a life of anarchy.
Is it within your experience to say that you love someone? You know that concept, at least in your own frame of reference? Okay. Prove it to me.
Love can't be proven, which is rather elementary, no? It's not a petri dish kinda deal. You would have to draw your own conclusions on a person's love for another after observing their actions. Ask someone to prove this and you'll get all kinds of squishy, corny, nonsense answers - subjectively.
It's a loaded question, of course. Like asking me to prove how awesome my baked lasagna tastes. Maybe there's some sort of biochemical change that can show, by experiment, a physiological change when 2 people are in love (speculating big time there). There may even be a certain part of the neo-cortex lighting up only when two people are in love. And even if I'm right, that sort of experiment still wouldn't prove love at all.
I mean when 2 people respond to each other in an extraordinary manner - a way that CAN'T be explained - that's kinda the definition of love. Also, since love - I would assume - originates from our higher power, guess that means I'd have to first prove God to you before I could prove how and why I love someone.
But I guess that's the point you were trying to make. LOL