?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

"Perfect" does not exist

I wrote this in response to ceolnamara's recent post about ontology and cosmology:

"Perfect" as commonly understood and defined, is a non-entity. There is no such thing. Perfection, as such, is an impossible dream. Not even God is perfect by that definition. Look at humans... a waste disposal facility placed near a recreational facility. Nipples on men. We're mammals that live on land, why are we almost entirely naked? Fingernails, the appendix, the tailbone... natural disasters.

It is the truly enlightened human who realizes that the only perfection lies in imperfection... that the ideal of "perfect" is impossible, and the true perfection lies in that everything is already perfect, flaws and all.

After that, whether a God exists or not is irrellevant. In the first place, it is an obvious fact that God is obviously NOT a giant human in the sky who has compassion in a human sense (just look at the world around you), and thus we must redefine God. People keep getting nowhere in the argument for or against a God because their definition of a God is flawed. I find it strange that the atheist has the same definition of God as the theist.

If we change the definition of God to something like "The collective consciousness" or "the thing that began the experiment of Life," then it ceases to matter who is right or wrong, atheist or theist. Because whether this form of God exists or not, it makes more sense than a giant human in the sky with compassion in the human sense. It's something that the atheist could accept if enough evidence were provided, so whether the atheist is right or not no longer matters... because the fact remains that whatever God is like, under this definition, "compassionate being" is no longer a sticking point in the argument. Atheists use the definition most theists have against them, citing disasters as evidence against God's compassion. But redefine God to be a part of all of Life and therefore a non-interferative God, then that argument is no longer valid.

Or to sum it all up: God IS evolution. God IS life. There could be no ultimate beginning, and no end, because science has already proved that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and energy is matter.

Science and spirituality used to be partners. Religion and spirituality used to be partners. Very few religious people are spiritual, which is why science has been so against religion and spirituality for so long... they don't realize that spirituality and religion are not the same thing, nor do they realize that science and spirituality do not have to be enemies. Science has been fighting religion so hard that it's confused spirituality and religion to be the same thing.

For every question there is an answer.

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
beginnings_end
Oct. 13th, 2005 02:14 pm (UTC)
Excellent post!

God IS evolution. God IS life.

I couldn't agree with you more. We all can agree life exists, so why not just believe in that? It really can be that simple...
fayanora
Oct. 14th, 2005 11:47 am (UTC)
Exactly. :-)

And thanks.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

mourning
fayanora
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective
Fayanora's Web Site

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taichi Kaminogoya