Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Monday, February 22, 2021, 13:20 (1368 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “Entertainment” and “pass time as we humans idly do” are derogatory descriptions. Why do you constantly harp on God’s purposefulness, and yet refuse to tell us what you think may have been his purpose in creating life, including humans? Do you really believe that your God created us without himself having any feelings at all, no awareness of love, joy, anger, pleasure etc.? You might as well bow down and worship a block of stone. In any case, you’ve told us he’s interested, and when pressed you’ve told us he might enjoy his work like a painter enjoying his paintings, and he might want us to recognize him and his works, and to have a relationship with us, and of course he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. You just don’t like it when I offer you a different thought pattern from your own!

DAVID: You are the one who imagines God as human and implying He requires entertainment.

I keep rejecting the word “entertainment” as derogatory, and I stick to your own agreement that he is INTERESTED in his creations. I do not imagine him as human, but like yourself I believe that if he exists, he probably (later you changed this to possibly) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Your reply indicates you are aware of my approach to God from past entries. I haven't changed. Every time we guess at his motives we must recognize it is all guesswork. I can admit God may have feeling of emotions that resembles ours, but 'may have' does not mean it has to be true.

None of our theories have “to be true” – including the theory that your God exists. We can only offer possibilities, and test their logic against whatever facts we have. “May have” acknowledges that it is possible (compared to your earlier “probable”) that he has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and if it is possible, then it should not be dismissed simply because we don’t and can’t know the truth.

DAVID: […] I try to predict concepts of God by studying the science of what He has created (thru His works).

I don’t know why you use the word “predict”, and although I agree that you study the science of his works (hence the design argument for his existence), your attempts to combine your theories concerning his purpose and the manner in which he achieves his purpose have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

DAVID: He seems to me full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.

This is a sensational new development in your thinking. Until now you have been adamant that every creation was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, and I have asked you a thousand times why, in that case, he created millions of extinct life forms (plus food supplies) that had no connection with humans. Now apparently he simply desires to create whatever he creates, with no other motive.

DAVID: I do not see Him producing humans just for his own self-interest or self entertainment as primary reasons. I carefully follow Karen Armstrong's views that studying His works is the most mature approach. And that has given me my views of God.

Now that you have embraced the idea that he created all life forms for the sake of creation, why are you suddenly switching to humans? You are certain that he is interested in his creations (including humans). Why, then, are you certain that he could not have created his creations (including humans) because he wanted to create something that he could be interested in? This theory would explain the huge diversity of extinct pre-human life, and is based entirely on the mature approach of linking his works to his possible motives for creating his works. And I’m not even asking you to believe it. I’m asking you why you find it inconceivable.