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

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 13:04 (3135 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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? - DAVID: What we are back to what is the problem of evil. And yes, the Koran is the most mature way to look at it. My answer to theodicy in my first book is the dangers in the environment and the disease causing organisms can be combatted by our intelligence as humans. They are challenges to be solved and we have solved many. We have no idea whether God wanted to protect us and make life a bed of roses, boring, or whether the evolutionary systems He employed did not permit him full control as religions seem to think He has. - Evil is not the problem. I wrote that I could “find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad””, and you are simply offering those credible reasons. We are discussing the nature of your God as revealed in his works. Evil is only a problem for those who insist that God is all nice and good, and not nasty and bad. His works reveal a mixture, so why would anyone assume that they do not reflect his nature? The Bible tells us the same story of nice and nasty, and the Koran is far from being all sweetness and light, as I pointed out earlier. I have done as the Koran instructed, so is this mixed concept of God “mature” or not? (Frankly, I think the term is silly, but you and Karen Armstrong chose it.)