Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have recently gone over an idea that has come to mind.
As most religions I am familiar with state, an all powerful been created them. With that said, it is also known to be the greater being knowing everything and the creations left with little knowledge.
So if this is the case, then how can we believe such a person to be a god as we know of?
We have no possible idea of how intelligent a deity could be and how lowly our own intelligence is. If this is the case, how are we to believe the deity is truly of described definition?
Could it be that god is just an all powerful metaphor for life?
or a deity described as the creation of beginning?
or a deity complete unlisted from all we know?

Discuss:
Your own religion and fallacies of intelligence to a deity or belief.

i don't see how a Creator God can't exist, or at the very least existed once. i wouldn't know so much about being omniprescent, omniscient and omnipotent, but i can't realy argue that it might be possible too. however, even if it is, it is probably either dedicated to not interfering with our lives, or else seriously doesn't care what the hell happens to us. i don't believe that whatever this being is is truely benevolent and kind and loving like so many religions claim it is. i would think that if it truely exists, it would have to be everything and nothing at once. beyond defnition or description, because to define it would be to break it down and compare it, and it can't be compared to anything.

or, perhaps this eing was once everything and nothing, but had shattered and fragmented, becoming so many different things both dark and light, and both kind and cruel, and both soft and hard, and both hot and cold, and so on. basically being a source beyond all definition, but exploading cataclysmically into everything, no longer existing anymore as a single omniprescent being, but rather everything was once part of it.

just a couple theories.

The question is more of perceiving any god correctly. A rose is consider a rose as it is said, but a rose could mean more than just some flower.

That's not helping. At all.

it might be nonsense to some, but i actually enjoyed reading it, and feel like i realy learned something new that i already knew (if that makes sense to you). this is actually quite a treat. i think i will share this with my Guild... by the way, i think i'll invite you to said guild. ^_^

There's a lot of quotes there from Charles Muller's translation of the Tao te Ching. I mention them all because they all serve to bring about one or two points each of their own.

First of all, if you look at the text itself and not necessarily the religion (granted, this is an English translation who's language has been modified to give that same simplistic, poetic feel to an English audience.) you'll notice a lot of similarities between what is described as Tao and the properties those of various religions prescribe deities when you try to find proof of their existence. The big difference is that Tao is never actually labeled as a personified existence, it's the natural order and flow of all things, hence constantly being referred to as 'The Way'.

The text constantly points out that the only way to even begin to understand this thing is to do...well...nothing. As humans we constantly divide and analyze, changing everything to suit our needs. It's been found in Quantum Physics that there truly is no such thing as the objective observer, that even the simple act of measuring changes a thing. In order to understand the true natural order beneath it all, that which is essentially the essence of all the world an what it is, you must let it all go. Do NOTHING, and things will return to their natural order. This is the ideal strived for by the ideal Taoist sage, a concept known as wu-wei or unattached action, under acting, or even the pursuit of no end. Even then, it's made adamantly clear that we actually know nothing, and to claim we do is to fool ourselves into untruth. The Tao te Ching is full of contradictions and paradoxes, but it is these very paradoxes which induce the correct state of mind to understand the Tao.

The point of all of this is that you can't come right about to religion and dissect it with an analytical knife. The nature of God or deity to many religions is essentially the same as the Tao, unknowable. Many prescribe attributes to deities to make understanding them simpler to the basic human being, seeing as how it would be easier to relate to it, but the overall message is the same. You must let go of rationality and logic and in order to understand the inherent essence of that particular brand of spirituality.

That doesn't mean I think they wouldn't all benefit from denying the absoluteness of their statements. It's like reading the traditional Little Red Riding Hood. You don't take it for literal truth, but you find the moral of the story or the essence of it and practice that. You don't say you absolutely know something when you know it's inherently unknowable.