Can a God be Insane?

[Sunstone]

Can a god be insane? Why or why not?

 

[BucephalusBB]

She could be, but as we were created by her intensions we could never know. If she is insane, so are we..

 

[Popeyesays]

If you happen to be H. P. Lovecraft the notion is useful for crafting great stories.

However; sanity is a human value and human values don't apply to God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you compare God to us ...one or the other must be insane.

 

[BucephalusBB]

and human values don't apply to God.

Says who?

 

[Buttercup]

Can a god be insane? Why or why not?

It has been said that man was created in the image of God.

Looking at Mr. Bean....well, you can draw your own conclusions.

 

[Popeyesays]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeyesays
and human values don't apply to God.

Says who?


We don't know what God is or is not, so are values are an attempt to find God, but God is not bound by our values--He is ineffable, inscrutable, unknowable and what we consider human values do not apply to Him. He created us and He created "human values"; but God IS, He is not Created.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

He created us and He created "human values"; but God IS, He is not Created.

Such statements are about a knowable, effable "God." Verb forms of "to be" are attached to "things." Attributes like "creativity" are likewise indelibly linked with thingliness - the known and the effable.

 

[Popeyesays]

Such statements are about a knowable, effable "God." Verb forms of "to be" are attached to "things." Attributes like "creativity" are likewise indelibly linked with thingliness - the known and the effable.

No. We are forced to think of God in human terms, that is why we are doomed to failure in that effort. Our brain is part of Creation and God is NOT part of Creation; therefore, he is ineffable.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

Our brain is part of Creation and God is NOT part of Creation; therefore, he is ineffable.

If "God" "is" then "God" is a thing. If "God" creates, then "God" is a thing with the attribute of "creativity." Imagining such may be the "failure" doomed by the incompleteness of human language, but that doesn't change that thinking about "God" as itself having being or attributes makes "God" an effable thing to the one so thinking.

 

[Popeyesays]

If "God" "is" then "God" is a thing. If "God" creates, then "God" is a thing with the attribute of "creativity." Imagining such may be the "failure" doomed by the incompleteness of human language, but that doesn't change that thinking about "God" as itself having being or attributes makes "God" an effable thing to the one so thinking.

No, you are leaving steps out of your reasoning. "If 'God' IS then 'God' IS a thing." is a logical gloss.

Go ahead and fill it in.

Regards,
Scott

 

[UnTheist]

Can a God be Insane?

Only if you somehow know how God thinks. (and since God is 'incomprehensible to the human mind', you can't.)

 

[logician]

Can a god be insane? Why or why not?

From our viewpoint, certainly.

 

[Todd]

Can a god be insane? Why or why not?

Well, we could consider God insane from a human standpoint. However, to call God insane would imply that we are above God and know more than he knows. In other words, he knows best, and in my opinion, his views and thoughts of what's right and wrong are above our views and thoughts.

 

[Hope]

If God were insane, I doubt such a beautifully complex universe and intelligent, mostly sane humans would have come into existence.

 

[logician]

If God were insane, I doubt such a beautifully complex universe and intelligent, mostly sane humans would have come into existence.

Or, no god exists, and chaos is a natural phenomenon.

 

[Popeyesays]

Amd what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon?

Regards,
Scott

 

[UnTheist]

Amd what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon?

Regards,
Scott

*POOF!!!*

Nah. It was Cause and Effect.

If you would later ask where the matter came from, the answer could be "it was always here." If not, an "I'dunno" would be the most honest answer.

 

[Popeyesays]

*POOF!!!*

Nah. It was Cause and Effect.

If you would later ask where the matter came from, the answer could be "it was always here." If not, an "I'dunno" would be the most honest answer.

We don't know. So, saying it was always here is also a cop-out.

Science can back it all up on rewind right up to the instant of the flash. However, we will never see the finger flip the switch, that is beyond our capacity to comprehend.

We are therefore contingent beings, contingent upon the universe for our own existence.

There is no need to say God wasn't there or was there--we can never determine for usre with our own capacity.

But our rational thought prompts us to do this anyway. To try again and again, even if we say we are satisfied with our inability to KNOW. We aren't really. It is our nature to question what happened in that instant before the flash.

That unremitting urge is, to me, clear evidence of the presence of God, and that God created the whole universe so we could 'scratch that intellectual itch'.

In other words we would not naturally yearn so strongly for what isn't there, if there was not SOMETHING there.

The mystic might say:

"One must judge of search by the standard of the Majnun of Love. [1] It is related that one day they came upon Majnun sifting the dust, and his tears flowing down. They said, "What doest thou?" He said, "I seek for Layli." They cried, "Alas for thee! Layli is of pure spirit, and thou seekest her in the dust!" He said, "I seek her everywhere; haply somewhere I shall find her."
[1 Literally, Majnun means "insane." This is the title of the celebrated lover of ancient Persian and Arabian lore, whose beloved was Layli, daughter of an Arabian prince. Symbolizing true human love bordering on the divine, the story has been made the theme of many a Persian romantic poem, particularly that of Nizami, written in 1188-1189 A.D.
Yea, although to the wise it be shameful to 7 seek the Lord of Lords in the dust, yet this betokeneth intense ardor in searching. "Whoso seeketh out a thing with zeal shall find it." [1]
[1 Arabian proverb.]
The true seeker hunteth naught but the object of his quest, and the lover hath no desire save union with his beloved. Nor shall the seeker reach his goal unless he sacrifice all things. That is, whatever he hath seen, and heard, and understood, all must he set at naught, that he may enter the realm of the spirit, which is the City of God. Labor is needed, if we are to seek Him; ardor is needed, if we are to drink of the honey of reunion with Him; and if we taste of this cup, we shall cast away the world.
(Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 6)


Regards,
Scott

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If "God" "is" then "God" is a thing.

Wrong. The reason this is wrong has been addressed several times in other threads.

If "God" creates, then "God" is a thing with the attribute of "creativity."

Wrong. Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God, but, rather, the aggregate of his acting nature.

You are making the same error that atheists do when they liken God to a pink unicorn somewhere "out there."