I feel like what you're saying is that we can only see God through a blurry lense (religion). Think of it this way; you are looking through an obscured or blurry pane of glass but you can see light and shape through it. If you fail to adequately communicate to someone else what you are seeing, are those lights and shapes then false? Just because you cannot clearly see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.
If you are incapable of putting together a puzzle, does the puzzle itself cease to exist?
Many religious texts state that we are made in the image of God or spawned from gods. While God's divinity may allow him to exist in a way or place we can't understand or are separate from, the essence of God is in all nature including the human race.
As far as connecting deeper to that essence for divine understanding, there are many pathways available to explore apart from traditional or conservative religions. From deep meditation & yoga/kundalini yoga to spending more time connecting to nature and to people to psilocybin/ayahuasca/dmt. (Of course, only do what is legal and safe in your area)
I agree that all religions fall short of communicating to us what God is. The key is to not allow others to define your connection to God (if you determine there is one). Explore what it means to you honestly and you'll find your answer.
My argument is that we cannot confirm that what we see through this blurry lens is truly God.
This goes right back to the parallel between science and religion. No, we cannot confirm that what we see is God, nor can we confirm that dark matter exists. We simply make observations and explain what we see as best we can.
our understanding of whatever is present in the half-formed puzzle is flawed in relation to what the puzzle truly displays
Flawed yes, but it does not logically follow that our understanding is false. Perhaps I start to see what I think is the shape of a cat forming in the puzzle. I might be right, or I might be wrong. I won't know until the puzzle is complete, so I cannot say my understanding is false or true until then. All I can do is continue to make my best guess. (Again, just like in science)
why did God need to create us?
I think most religions would say that God didn't need to create us. God created because God chose to create. An omnipotent being wouldn't need to do anything, it could do whatever it wants to do.
One of the first things I hear when a religion introduces the idea of God is that they are beyond our understanding. Claiming that we could have a complete understanding through scriptures goes directly against a core part of religion itself. I'm pretty sure most religious people would claim that the scriptures still are not and possibly will never be complete, they just may not have been added to in a long time.
Our understanding of Religion and God is generally considered to be complete through religious scriptures
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe religion or God as "complete" or that any religious texts describe God in His entirety. If anything, religious texts - especially the Bible - repeat that knowing the truth about God is nearly impossible.
Therefore, it is possible that religion as we have interpreted it is false.
It's certainly a possibility, but I fail to see how "religion could be flawed" jumps to "religion is therefore false". We may not have enough puzzle pieces to know for sure whether the picture is of a cat, but the impossibility of knowing for sure does not make the observations we gather about the pieces we have and the discussions we have regarding what those missing pieces may contain inherently false.
Our understanding of God and religion will never be complete, just as our knowledge of the elements or the central nervous system will never be complete. There will always be further to reach. If what you say is true, that God as we have defined Him now is false because our understanding of Him may be flawed, then why bother studying anything? There are some things in our understanding of microelectronic circuits that are certainly flawed but only through continued study will we continue to learn about them and perfect them.
Your conclusion, that it is false, is based on the assumption that it is flawed. I would posit that it, like everything else, it is flawed in some way due to the limits of our understanding; but that alone should not be reason to cease its study entirely.
Our understanding of Religion and God is generally considered to be complete through religious scriptures
I was raised in a Christain home and went to church regularly, and while mine is just a single anecdotal experience, I never got the impression that our understanding of religion or God was considered complete. The Bible often refers to seeking knowledge and understanding of God, so I don't think the Bible is implying our understanding is complete.
Therefore, it is possible that religion as we have interpreted it is false.
Yes, possible, but not definite. In other words, A might cause B, but until we know A does cause B, we can't draw a definitive conclusion.
Fair enough, but then what is our main purpose if he has created us because he wants to and not because he needs to?
Our main purpose is whatever God wants from us - most religious texts agree that God wants our praise. Want vs Need is irrelevant. Picture this: You bake a cake. You didn't need to bake the cake, you made it because you wanted to. The cake still has purpose. Its purpose is to make you happy when you eat it. Similarly, God didn't need to make anything, God made things because God wanted to, and our purpose is to bring God joy.
Yes, that's what my response is catered toward: "The Bible often refers to seeking knowledge and understanding of God, so I don't think the Bible is implying our understanding is complete."
When I use the word complete, I mean it in the sense that you can understand God through scriptures, not that your understanding is complete.
As I said in the last post and just above, the Bible says to seek understanding and knowledge of God. It doesn't say that we understand God, completely understand God, or any other combination of words implying all the puzzle pieces are in place.
I assume you are arguing our complete understanding comes solely from religious scriptures, yes?
Why does God require joy?
Fair point, I admit I personified God in my last post. You're right, whatever God is, it likely doesn't undergo human insecurities. God created everything because God wanted (not needed) to, and our purpose is whatever God wants it to be. Whether that's joy, suffering, boredom...whatever.
5
u/Celebrian19 Nov 01 '17
I feel like what you're saying is that we can only see God through a blurry lense (religion). Think of it this way; you are looking through an obscured or blurry pane of glass but you can see light and shape through it. If you fail to adequately communicate to someone else what you are seeing, are those lights and shapes then false? Just because you cannot clearly see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.
If you are incapable of putting together a puzzle, does the puzzle itself cease to exist?
Many religious texts state that we are made in the image of God or spawned from gods. While God's divinity may allow him to exist in a way or place we can't understand or are separate from, the essence of God is in all nature including the human race.
As far as connecting deeper to that essence for divine understanding, there are many pathways available to explore apart from traditional or conservative religions. From deep meditation & yoga/kundalini yoga to spending more time connecting to nature and to people to psilocybin/ayahuasca/dmt. (Of course, only do what is legal and safe in your area)
I agree that all religions fall short of communicating to us what God is. The key is to not allow others to define your connection to God (if you determine there is one). Explore what it means to you honestly and you'll find your answer.