God and Reality (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Wednesday, July 03, 2013, 16:43 (4160 days ago) @ David Turell

The muddled story so far: Atheists need to believe in an infinite number of universes to support their faith in chance. David supposes that his designer God would have created an infinite number of universes. His infinite number, however, is more plausible than the atheists' "poppycock" infinite number, because (a) he doesn't need an infinite number to support his faith, and (b) God designed them all.
 
We have now moved on to David's claim that he does not try to give his God "the religions' attributes of the God they describe". It turns out that he gives them most of the attributes described by OT Judaism.-Dhw: A God without attributes may as well not exist. Why not emulate BBella, and call it the All That Is? It is there, and it produced the universe and life. No name. No attributes. The perfect agnostic solution. -DAVID: I don't see the agnosticism at all. See my response above. You are so bound to the God of the OT that you met in childhood you let that image muddle your thinking.-dhw: An extraordinary non sequitur. You see yourself as a panentheist who does not endow God with any attributes, and yet in fact your God is the God of the OT! I offer you the ALL THAT IS without attributes, and you think I'm being muddled by the OT! -DAVID: I feel the OT training of your childhood muddles your thinking. I make up my God as I go along. -I admire your honesty. This is probably why on a Sunday your God has no religion's attributes, and on a Monday he becomes the God of the Old Testament. "But interestingly, arrived at by studying science" (Monday, 01 July at 15.50).
 
DAVID: My God does not include any trinitarian extensions, which is why He is OT only. [Christians might wonder why this should be a recommendation!] You keep worrying about God and evil. God gave us free will and life. He doesn't worry much about evil, for what He did allows it. He arranged for a guided evolution and that implies red of tooth and claw. I do not believe He is the sweetness and light of the OT on one hand and killing off sets of people on the other. The OT makes him a complex mixture. I try to avoid all that.-Yet more attributes! Rest assured, I don't keep worrying about God and evil, but I'm willing to discuss different concepts. Yours apparently created the scope for evil but doesn't worry much about it, stays hidden to test our faith, and hopes we'll learn our lessons from his brand of tough love. This sounds to me like the complex mixture of the OT which you try to avoid, although you believe it. I wrote earlier: "The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral." That applies as much to muddled theists' woolly concepts of God as it does to woolly explanations of life and consciousness. BBella's ALL THAT IS expresses what we know, and avoids all attributes. Agnosticism par excellence!