Don't think anybody phrases it better than Carl Sagan:
Carl Sagan seemed a firm believer in the concept that the universe can be powerful, and unexplainable without the need for a logical motive.
I think it's safe to believe in a God if you can admit existence = God. God in itself is a motiveless, neutral, non-being. God is a set of rules that constructs matter, time, space, and energy. Just as a Judeochristian image it's very well all powerful, all knowing, constant, and works in a fashion that's beyond human understanding. The only difference is that it's entirely motiveless, and cares nothing of the progress of human life (Which, if you observe nature, does it seem to really?).
From my knowledge the closest thing to this is in terms of religion a lot of the concepts of some variations of Hinduism and Brahman. Hinduism still has an insane very inconstant hierarchy of God's, and ridiculous - yet interesting- folklore, though.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|