philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 30, 2018, 15:13 (2027 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.

DAVID: My disagreement with Tony is more than slight. God's personality can only be imagined based on how we think and what we see in his works. "Imagined" is only slightly relatable.

And:

DAVID: He has to be imagined from what we know He has presented. Like the Wizard of Oz, He is the man behind the curtain. Why do you think Adler warns about the difference in His personality […]?

dhw: One of the great moments of world literature! Of course, Oz was not a wizard after all. But I agree: if God exists, we can only imagine him by looking at his works: the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, including humans “in his image”, creating their own pains and pleasures. And we can only imagine his purpose: perhaps a spectacle to relieve his boredom and isolation? After all, in spite of your hero Adler, you agree that God has our thoughts and his logic is like ours.

Neat trick. Of course God thinks and some portion of his thinking and logic mirrors ours. That is all I have given you. I view his mind as exceedingly more powerful than ours in depth of thought and overall knowledge, and I suggest you should think of His mind in that context. Perhaps then you will quit humanizing Him so severely.