Perfection. Do We, Can We Understand It?

[Hard as Nails]

God has been cultivated into an all powerfull being with a human personality for pretty much all of written history. Perhaps, but for something to have been there for eternity (was not created by something else), then it has to be PERFECT. Something that is PERFECT must be unchanging. If this thing acts like a human, it cannot be perfect. Human qualities will always be flawed. Alright, i cant really get my thoughts straight right now. I had one of those revelations feelings that just kind of left me, and i cant put it into words. Could somebody explain to me how something that was never created (always been there) can think and act like a common person. What? He gets jealous? Angry? If he is so much like us, why not create us at first? You know, not 6,000,000,000 years later. But, back on topic. I believe this phenomenon is an equation that governs EVERYTHING. This equation will never be isolated, since everything we know is related to the equation, we cannot find all the factors. Since it cannot be isolated, we find some way to explain it. The theists use god. They use god to explain what they cannot. AND IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. Again, i do not look down upon the religious for their beliefs. You obviously have enough proof (or faith) for yourself. But isnt it kind of a cop-out? I mean, we ARE just people. To think that in this time we could explain the universe is just ignorant, on my part as well. Hehe....chances are we are ALL wrong. Irony on a global scale. OVERVIEW: There is something governing the universe. I think we cant explain it yet. We are wasting our time. Peace.

[syzygy]

This is a good point: God does not have human qualities, it is simply impossible. People often forget that God is Infinite and can have no relation to the finite (i.e. us humans). When we speak about God we are using a language that can only limit something to be comprehended, and so we inevitably limit the Infinite when speaking or thinking about It without even realizing it. What one must keep in mind when speaking about Infinity (God) is that you never have the whole picture, but only a fragment. These fragmented perspectives can only be incomplete and false representations of the True Infinity. They should only be used as ways of getting to God and not misunderstood as God Itself. When you do the latter, you run into all types of problems that we are all too familiar with. If God can be imagined as an object, It can be possessed by people who can use it for their own selfish ends, which is exactly the opposite purpose of religion - the real purpose being to transcend the will of the self so that one becomes united with the Whole, the Way, God.

[♥Mark]

OVERVIEW: There is something governing the universe. [/b] Yes, I believe they call it "physics". It sounds pretty pagan to me, though.

[Neruo]

Yes, I believe they call it "physics". It sounds pretty pagan to me, though. [/b] Touché

[syzygy]

Physics is just one limited aspect.

[Genjyo]

They should only be used as ways of getting to God and not misunderstood as God Itself. When you do the latter, you run into all types of problems that we are all too familiar with. If God can be imagined as an object, It can be possessed by people who can use it for their own selfish ends, which is exactly the opposite purpose of religion - the real purpose being to transcend the will of the self so that one becomes united with the Whole, the Way, God. [/b] Perhaps that's why God condemns idolatry and why no graven image can fully capture God. Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

[hellopotato]

i agree completely. god is simply a manifestation of all the beliefs that humans possess about how the world works. down with religion! up with physics haha

[syzygy]

down with religion! up with physics haha [/b] but these aren't two conflicting things...

[Neruo]

but these aren't two conflicting things... [/b] Not per definition, but jesus walking on water does defy physics, as does metamorphosis and other lame bible-myths.

[syzygy]

Not per definition, but jesus walking on water does defy physics, as does metamorphosis and other lame bible-myths. [/b] Yes, this much is obvious. I understand the atheists on this forum constantly trying to debunk crazy religious ideas, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water! I would be cautious to generalize all things religious even if most of your experience with religion has to do with those who are incapable of thinking for themselves. The truth is there is no conflict between science and religion - each plays its own role and is not reducible to the other.

[Conforming Non-Conformist]

Science = based on the repeated trials of experimentation to produce the same result and make that result proven. Religion = based on blind faith and hope for truth, not in truth. Cannot be proven. This is one of the main conflicts that i see in science and religion. Honourable scientists test their 'faith' in a theory everyday in hopes of proving OR disproving it. Both results still lead to an end result that can be proven for or against. A religious devotee will not test their faith to destruction. There still remains a certain amount of "not wanting to know" , this is where blind faith comes in. Do not get me wrong, i am not looking for an arguement, i am just pointing out the apparent conflict involved in these two things.

[Neruo]

Yes, this much is obvious. I understand the atheists on this forum constantly trying to debunk crazy religious ideas, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water! I would be cautious to generalize all things religious even if most of your experience with religion has to do with those who are incapable of thinking for themselves. The truth is there is no conflict between science and religion - each plays its own role and is not reducible to the other. [/b] Some parts of religion can't be reduced by science, but that is because some parts of religion are un-reducable by logic. "god exist" 'no he doesn't, you don't have proof' "yes he does". However all the stuff that makes religion 'untouchable' can be used for any idea (god, allah, flying spagettimonster) so really it holds no argumental value. Yet people fail to see that.

[syzygy]

Science = based on the repeated trials of experimentation to produce the same result and make that result proven. Religion = based on blind faith and hope for truth, not in truth. Cannot be proven. [/b] This is the generalization I speak of - blind faith. True religion does not involve blind faith because it makes no sense; it involves actually experience and comes from within, not without. If you base your beliefs in blind faith there will come a day when you are confronted with opposition and you will either ignore it as most people, revise your beliefs, or discard them altogether. I do not concern myself with those who follow a book or a person blindly, I am more interested in those who confront this opposition head on and think for themselves. When you do the latter, you begin to base your beliefs in actual experience by "taking things back to their source". Now it is definitely more difficult to "prove" these states of being that are "acquired" when actively experiencing to someone else because of their subjective nature, but there is work being done. For one, you can test the brain waves patterns with an EEG to measure subjective states of mind. On a more general level, anyone can notice simply how someone treats other beings with respect, how they conduct themselves, or their subtlety of awareness.

[Conforming Non-Conformist]

"I am more interested in those who confront this opposition head on and think for themselves. When you do the latter, you begin to base your beliefs in actual experience by "taking things back to their source" " What religion is this?

[syzygy]

"I am more interested in those who confront this opposition head on and think for themselves. When you do the latter, you begin to base your beliefs in actual experience by "taking things back to their source" " What religion is this? [/b] This is not particular to any one religion. I guess you would find this more in say Buddhism or Taosim, but those aren't technically religions in the Western sense either. There are examples in Christianity, Islam, Judaism for sure though. They are more esoteric branches/individuals, but rooted in religion none the less.

[juroara]

religion is not about blind faith. originally it was meant to be a door into spirituality. the door doesnt work though if people forget what its for. the bible actually asks Christians to ASK and QUESTION

[Alban]

Ah yes the old science/religion debate. I have to agree with you, juroara. There's a good few historians who believe that western science came about, in part, BECAUSE of questioning nature of christianity not in spite of it. It was largely the medieval church, NOT the bible that stifled the quest for knowledge.

[gregash]

It was largely the medieval church, NOT the bible that stifled the quest for knowledge.[/b] I agree that the dogma of the church is to blame for the stifling and not the core writings of the bible but I would say that the church started it in the middle ages and has never fully given up their efforts to this day. And here is a little flow chart comparing science and faith. http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/...0vs%20faith.png I'll admit, it's easier to take the faith route. But oh so unfulfilling.

[Alban]

the church started it in the middle ages and has never fully given up their efforts to this day. [/b] Too true. Interesting flow chart as well.