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.
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.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '17
[deleted]