Open Mind wrote:
To think God can't be imperfect is the origin of most misinterpretations in religion.
It is not a contradiction that a perfect God is imperfect. Contrary, if he wasn't imperfect then he would lack imperfection; hence he could not be perfect (how could something perfect lack something?) In the same way you can explain why there is relative world when God is absolute.
That's a lot of fluff with no real substance.
If you say that God is everything: all that is good, and all that is bad, then I really fail to see his purpose. God implies a moral judge or sorts. If God is absolutely everything, and is excused to be wrong as much as right, then I see absolutely no reason for God's existence. Everything might as well just exist as it is without God laced in it.
Quote:
A perfect and absolute God is eternal energy AND eternal consciousness AND eternal being (if he wasn’t a being he could not be absolute, because the absolute must include everything relative and in the relative world there are beings)
As such he includes limited energy (the origin of matter), limited consciousness (the origin of the soul) and limited being (the origin of creatures).
The creation is an inescapable consequence of the creator, nothing else.
Even if you're saying God's imperfection comes from God's creations, that has nothing to do with what you were responding to. I talked about the contradiction between God's judgment in the Old and New Testament.
Again, your logic seems more like an excuse for God, but proves nothing.
Quote:
Infinity in time and space is the imperfect image of eternity beyond time and space. Since God is perfect and absolute, he never changes in his entirety. Hence the creation must be a "zero-sum game" in time and space. This is why there is Duality and Karma, i.e. for every action there is a corresponding reaction (actio = reactio) in the spiritual and in the material world. And, for the same reason every action and reaction in the spiritual world must have corresponding action and reaction in the material world (in metaphysics it is said that the world is shaped by the consciousness) because otherwise the absolute would change.
Now you're expecting me to have faith. What a cute notion based on ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE. I don't know about you, but I really don't see much balance in this world. Bad guys win; innocents suffer, and then die.
This whole notion of karma is ridiculous, and non-apparent in this world.
Quote:
You can explain everything (science, metaphysics, the core of all pristine religions) with this approach except the fact why the creator exists. But the same goes for materialism which can't explain the original existence of energy/matter either - either way you have to believe.
1. It does not explain everything. Explain to me when God decided to imbue our evolving ancestors with souls.
2. It might EXPLAIN morality, but it PROVES nothing.
3. You assume that energy and matter had to be created. You say God has to exist for eternity, but why couldn't the universe have existed forever? We already know that time is nothing more than a dimension. It seems very reasonable to me that the universe has existed forever, and is infinite. As hard as that is to wrap your head around, at least we know the universe exsists, unlike God.
Quote:
It is not God's task to prove his existence. It's men's funeral to see the proofs that are already there. As human beings we have the privilege of free will. We can choose what we want to believe or even if we want to believe. It is easy to believe in materialism because most people do so. You can use Occam’s razor and say that materialism is right because the only precondition is the existence of energy and everything else could be explained out of that (big bang, cosmology, life formation, evolution). On the other hand you can explain everything out of the existence of a perfect and absolute God too.
No, there are problems. To do this denies evolution, for example, which, if you research, is scientific fact. I know it's called a theory, but so is the Earth rotating the sun. Perhaps you have no idea just how much evidence this "theory" has. And I pointed out one problem between God and evolution. We started out as single-celled organisms, and eventually became modern humans. So, explain to me when God decided to imbue our evolving ancestors with souls. Did one generation deserve them when the previous--and pretty much identical--generation did not? And what was the cut-off?
Quote:
But we can also judge according to the fruits the materialistic world-view bears: destruction of the ecological balance, world-wide pollution, exploitation of animals and plants, cutting down of the rain forest, violence, profiteering, genocide, and so on. I personally don’t like this world with no real love and no respect for live and I don't think that a spirtual world-view would lead to the same result. Therefore I decided to believe in God (the absolute and perfect God, not one of the false Gods proclaimed by institutionalized religions). And after I started to believe, I found the proofs, got insight into "higher" coherences, experienced love and -finally back on topic- stopped eating carcasses; I just couldn’t do it anymore. If someone calls me a fag for this, I can live with that.
Blah blah, aren't you romantic. Seriously, go work for fucking Hallmark. I guess God forgot about the balance when he made us omnivores.
Everything here is just what you WANT to believe, laced with some pretty words and, at best, some excuses for your logic. But as far as proof goes, none here is present.
I'm really not a fan of metaphysics. The universe is not unraveled by thinking about it; you need to study it. When it gets right down to it, metaphysics, like religion, is chasing God. It dodges a few boulders, more than most religions, but really it's the epitome of contrived bullshit, based on nothing but a bleeding heart.
I'm showing the white feather and avoid this debate. You have made a point. Concratulations!
On one hand you believe in Evolution although it is still debated by scientists (forget about the Creationists). There are lots of observations that speak against evolution at first sight. But you believe in it though. Maybe you are right, because if you take a closer look there is a way to fit most (but not all) of those observations in the theory. But you have to look into it.
On the other hand you reject Karma on the base of one single observation which is the standard stereotype objection of the bissfully ignorant Westener. This has been resolved a thousand times but you didn't even try.
Allthogether, your reply is a nice excercise that proofs that you are good in specious rhetorics, nothing else.
Open Mind 1, Noodles 0.
