Origin of God? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, April 22, 2016, 15:00 (3136 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I agree that limiting our concept of God to what he created is the best way to imagine what he is like, and I am surprised that you consider all the natural disasters, destructions, diseases, conflicts and fears of life's history to be the fault of humans even before we were around. If God exists, I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”, but they would not alter the fact that if we try to gauge his nature from what he created, it is difficult to suppose that as first cause he only created the “good” and had no knowledge of the “bad”.-DAVID: I'm sure God recognized the good and the bad. I was only commenting on humans badness, not under his control. The Earthquake in Ecuador killed many. But just like California, why build and live over fault lines when humans have the ability to identify them? Folks in California have chosen to live with danger. It is their choice. Besides why do you want to have God provide a danger free life? That is a religion's wish. We do not know if He loves us. -I did not say I wanted God to provide a danger-free life. I said, “I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”.” We are discussing the nature of God as is to be deduced from what he created. You claimed that the fearful OT concept was less “mature” than the NT loving concept, but the Koran was most “mature” as it told us to “look for God in his works”. I have pointed out that his works, including but not confined to ourselves, are a mixture of what most of us would consider “good” and “bad”: e.g. the joys of spring, the miseries of disease. This is not a complaint, merely an observation, following your recommendation of the Koran's more “mature” view. If I extrapolate from God's works a mixture of the nice and nasty, may I take it that you will accept this as a “mature” concept of God?