Did God Intend to Create Insanity?

[Amir]

Our relativity to GOD is relevant only by prophet/s, is it not?, or do you get an internal sense as well? I know, we think and imagine within a certain frame, but so far what we have accumulated is due to our curiosity and our “surrounding”. “We” till this day do not have “external knowledge”, so why would GOD create insanity, especially if the intention as “stated” in the “main 3”, is worship and good deeds.

theist: One would need to know GOD and it’s Nature to know why HE/SHE/IT create such things.

atheist: biological & environmental dynamics.

wuliheron: do you believe in GOD, if I may ask?

 

[Loren Booda]

Speak to Me

"I've been mad for fvcking years, absolutely years, been
over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands..."
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even
if you're not mad..."

-Pink Floyd

 

[wuliheron]

wuliheron: do you believe in GOD, if I may ask?

No, I'm an Agnostic Mystic. Existence is the only miracle I need, and as far as I am concerned it does not require any explanation.

 

[Tigron-X]

Well according to the Bible since we disobeyed God and left Eden, we have been responsible for our own creation and survival. Overtime, we learn what can happen in life when we do not take account for all the laws that construct it and hold it together. Past decisions have affected today and today's decisions will affect tomorrow, so the free will of mankind is affected by his neighbor. Insanity is a result of our ignorance, and a mistake is the best teacher.

 

[123rock]

But if god created us then he would have meant for that person to have that defect in their brain, causing that person to have no or reduced free will, therefore disproving the fact that everyone is born with free will and has the choice to be violent or cause suffering.

God supposedly created ALL human beings with free will. Christains do not believe that some people are less than others, as an example to them.
The idea of a "god" is that they would be all powerful and all knowing, so they could not make mistakes.

A very good point. But the definition of free will has to be cleared up a bit.

The soul would choose a set of choices based on the possibilities it is given.

If the soul has to choose whether to kill a person by slitting their throat, or by smothering them, the fact that a choice isn't given to it that you can hang them, doesn't mean that they aren't choosing.

This limit of choices can be seen not just through insanity, but through regular people's choices, for example you could stab yourself in the eye with a pen, but would you really do it?

You could, but your brain doesn't want you to and thus you are obliged to play by the rules of nature, which I suppose God created.

I think that in Matrix:Reloaded, the oracle pretty much sums it up that you aren't here to make the choices, but to understand them. Thus meaning that you have already made them and here is the proof.

 

[Enos]

God had no choice.

 

[Philocrat]

God had no choice.

God had choices:

1) The choice of being God and God only

2) The choice of doing something else other than being God (such as creating something else other than itself/herself/himself)

I have studied the 'Book of Nautre' to the very last page and I have found no logical or quantitative device with which to reconcile (1) and (2), one with the other. If anyone has found such a device, let them table it.

 

[Enos]

I believe there are certain principles that even God must follow.

 

[Philocrat]

I believe there are certain principles that even God must follow.

Correct ...and I strongly believe in this too. In fact this is one observation and statement of fact that I have been waiting for many years for someone to make. But then how do you reconcile this with those who turn God into a magician or a miracle maker, that is, those who treat God as if He/She/It is not following a procedure? This is a logical and quantitative nightmare for the faint-hearted.

The standard belief in philosophy now is that God is incompatible with logic, due to a huge catolgue of inconsistencies in both the Ontological and Design Arguments for the existnce of God. But my own detailed examination of all these arguments reveal that all the contradictions and inconsistencies in them do not necessarly undermine the logical and quantitative possibility of God, given that we were originally prepared to admit the possibility of a 'SYSTEMATIC PROCEDURAL GOD'. That is, if a procedural God were innitially admitted, then it may no longer be sufficient to think of a magical God that hurriedly created the world in seven days and dumped it on us in its current chaotic state and left us to get on with it. If God is following a procedure, and schematically and patiently doing so, then the seven-day creation is no longer sufficient for the PROPER and CLEAR Explanation of God. For there is nothing which logically rules out a seven-day creation being a seven-billion-years creation. For all we know, God may still be creating us and the wider world inclusive!

NOTE: This is what prompted me in recent years to formulate the 'PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUING CAUSATION' to reverse the direction of all the arguments invloved from the direction of inconsistency to the direction of consistency. My main interest in all this is the logical preservation of the Idea of God. Resulting from all this, I am now fundamentally claiming that not only is God compatible with logic but also God is analytically indestructible, at least until further notice! God must subsequently (and not necessarily immediately) bring the product of His/Her/Its creation to a perfect end.

 

[Enos]

I'll post a little of what I posted in another topic in PF. Hope it makes some sense, been thinking of this for a few days so far.

Change Constant and Order + Chaos Principle​

The universe must follow the change constant rule which is governed by Order and Chaos. Which states that all existence must constantly change and do it in the most orderly way possible. But when the choices are limited to where all possible choices have chaotic results, the orderly way would be to choose the lesser chaotic choice.

Big Bang is where many believe our universe began but it is just another part of the change constant and order + chaos principle. Something can only change so much before it changes into something that it already was. The orderly thing for all existence is to unify as a singular being or existence. But to do so would take a long time in our measurements of time because this must be achieved while avoiding chaos. But once absolute order is achieved change constant and order + chaos principle still applies. That is why the most orderly time of existence is followed by the most chaotic time of existence (Big Bang). Absolute order has no lesser chaotic choice because no order is else where so change constant forces absolute order into absolute chaos. So then the singular existence is no more and order is a part of the rules again in this infinite existence.
No beginning and no end would mean creation is impossible.

Just because we manipulate the order of something that has always existed doesn't mean creation was involved.