(no subject)
Was up all night. Couldn't stop thinking. I've got to post this to get it out of my head. I was up until seven, eight in the morning with this perkolating. I hate my mind at times. Warning: Contains semi-lucid ramblings on highly philosophical/religious matters. Likely also makes no damn sense.
Assumption 1: We, as humans, are incapable of understanding or even fully envisioning God (or fill in diety here). Any being which we could describe as a deity is, by definition, beyond our capabilities to grasp. Nothing which has any measure of all-knowing or all-powerfulness is within reasonable limits for humans to understand - we can't even really comprehend relatively tiny things, like the non-abstracted form of, say, 'New York City'. Any deity worth being called that is, by necessity, a creature which is outside of human comprehension and is at least somewhat alien to us in thought and form. This extends to the idea that no human truly can say that they know and are aware of God, given that doing so would require a mental shift of such magnitude it is doubtful that we could psychologically survive it. One can not look upon the true face of God and live, so to speak.
Assumption 2: There is some form of deity, though the specifics are unclear. While many look at all the things we have not learned and say that this is proof of the divine, I posit that it is by looking at what we already know that we can discover this. The level of complexity inherent in our base of knowledge is far, far beyond what any human can concieve. Even if we were able to live long enough to learn everything that we know already, it is doubtful anyone would be able to simultaniously comprehend quantum physics, genetics, macrosociology, physical engineering, and theology - there is simply too much present for the mind to handle. It's why we specalize so in-depth. Given, as well, that there appears to be no end point for any of our knowledge - just as physics is constantly discovering smaller and smaller particles and new micro-forces, other branches of knowledge are constantly discovering aspects to things which were previously invisible. There is no indication, in any field, of a true end point existing. To believe that this level of intricacy and complexity is natural is correct - it's nature, after all. But that does not except the idea that there is a source for nature. Given the composition of the universe, such a source would have to be a force that is far alien to our thought processes and has a level of power that we would be hard-pressed to not rank as omnipotence. Given that we have no options aside from calling it deity that give proper address to such a force, that is what we are left with.
Assumption 3: If we assume there is a God, and that it is impossible for us to know God without ceasing to be (for all intents and purposes), we are left with having only one route to discern this deity - morality. It is not a direct observation of the higher being, but by puzzling out this being's own moralistic code, we can observe it indirectly. This may or may not be of importance - there is no implication of an afterlife, judgement, or any such thing that we can infer from what logic has passed so far - but it is what can be done.
Assumption 4: To that end, it is logical to assume that God has indeed made the world in a familiar image. While it is possible that the alien mind of the deity would, for some reason, create a universe which is wholly unfamiliar and different, we have no way of possibly discerning this. We must work off this assumption, based upon the observation of life as we know it. Creatures take comfort in things which are familiar to them. They create, usually, to give comfort - making that which eases the mind (in one manner or another) and creations are usually familiar to the creator. It is not outside the realm of logic to posit that the universe is created in such a manner by the deity, as well. Thus, its mind is inherent in the world around us. By discovering and learning about said world, we can puzzle out our goal. To put it simply, we must find the truth of nature to find the truth of God.
To be continued in Part 2: Discerning Nature, posted... sooner or later. My mind is fading again, now.
Assumption 1: We, as humans, are incapable of understanding or even fully envisioning God (or fill in diety here). Any being which we could describe as a deity is, by definition, beyond our capabilities to grasp. Nothing which has any measure of all-knowing or all-powerfulness is within reasonable limits for humans to understand - we can't even really comprehend relatively tiny things, like the non-abstracted form of, say, 'New York City'. Any deity worth being called that is, by necessity, a creature which is outside of human comprehension and is at least somewhat alien to us in thought and form. This extends to the idea that no human truly can say that they know and are aware of God, given that doing so would require a mental shift of such magnitude it is doubtful that we could psychologically survive it. One can not look upon the true face of God and live, so to speak.
Assumption 2: There is some form of deity, though the specifics are unclear. While many look at all the things we have not learned and say that this is proof of the divine, I posit that it is by looking at what we already know that we can discover this. The level of complexity inherent in our base of knowledge is far, far beyond what any human can concieve. Even if we were able to live long enough to learn everything that we know already, it is doubtful anyone would be able to simultaniously comprehend quantum physics, genetics, macrosociology, physical engineering, and theology - there is simply too much present for the mind to handle. It's why we specalize so in-depth. Given, as well, that there appears to be no end point for any of our knowledge - just as physics is constantly discovering smaller and smaller particles and new micro-forces, other branches of knowledge are constantly discovering aspects to things which were previously invisible. There is no indication, in any field, of a true end point existing. To believe that this level of intricacy and complexity is natural is correct - it's nature, after all. But that does not except the idea that there is a source for nature. Given the composition of the universe, such a source would have to be a force that is far alien to our thought processes and has a level of power that we would be hard-pressed to not rank as omnipotence. Given that we have no options aside from calling it deity that give proper address to such a force, that is what we are left with.
Assumption 3: If we assume there is a God, and that it is impossible for us to know God without ceasing to be (for all intents and purposes), we are left with having only one route to discern this deity - morality. It is not a direct observation of the higher being, but by puzzling out this being's own moralistic code, we can observe it indirectly. This may or may not be of importance - there is no implication of an afterlife, judgement, or any such thing that we can infer from what logic has passed so far - but it is what can be done.
Assumption 4: To that end, it is logical to assume that God has indeed made the world in a familiar image. While it is possible that the alien mind of the deity would, for some reason, create a universe which is wholly unfamiliar and different, we have no way of possibly discerning this. We must work off this assumption, based upon the observation of life as we know it. Creatures take comfort in things which are familiar to them. They create, usually, to give comfort - making that which eases the mind (in one manner or another) and creations are usually familiar to the creator. It is not outside the realm of logic to posit that the universe is created in such a manner by the deity, as well. Thus, its mind is inherent in the world around us. By discovering and learning about said world, we can puzzle out our goal. To put it simply, we must find the truth of nature to find the truth of God.
To be continued in Part 2: Discerning Nature, posted... sooner or later. My mind is fading again, now.