Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
A speculative assumption that is based on the Abrahamic religion, but contradicts it and, moreover, violates the injunction “thou shalt not blaspheme.”
If you use the symbolism of the Abrahamic religion to describe your own beliefs, then only you can answer your question, because this is your personal idea of the world and God-say whatever you want.
And if in essence, then by defining the qualities of the creator, being his creation, you a priori cannot comprehend him completely, but you can project your own idea, giving him any qualities. In your example, we can say yes, as well as to anything else, because the creator is inherent in all manifestations.�
If we consider the problem from an ethical and philosophical point of view, we get a somewhat one-sided assumption. How many people give birth to a second child in order to show what the pain and suffering of the first-born is? I dare say that if this happens, then such a motive is far from the statistical norm. Can such people be called bad? Rather deviant with a serious mental disorder. However, the analogy is not entirely correct, since it describes human behavior. If we still talk about God in this way, it would suggest that in the world of people there is only evil and suffering. And this is contrary to life, which is represented in an infinite range of variations-from grief to joy.