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

by David Turell @, Monday, April 05, 2021, 18:37 (248 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Free-for-all means no planned destination for evolution. I believe I've given proof of the need for design. Your humanized God doesn't seem to know where He is going.

dhw: A God who decides to give free rein to evolution (though he can always dabble if he wants to) knows precisely where he is going: i.e. to the production of the huge variety of life forms that characterize the history of evolution.

Preposterous. How does your God know if humans will appear if at all?

dhw: If I design a huge kaleidoscope because I want a vast and unpredictable variety of patterns, does that mean I don’t know where I’m going?

Terrible analogy. Your goal is a kaleidoscope, nothing more. What is your next planned step?

dhw: And for the umpteenth time, please tell us why a God who – just like the designer of the motor car – knows what he wants to create and creates it, is not “humanized”, whereas a God who – just like the inventor of the kaleidoscope – knows what he wants and creates it, is “humanized”.

God must be described allegorically. God's goals are no different than human goals in the sense of the word 'goal'. That God has goals does not humanize Him.

dhw: There is no point in telling us how purposeful he is if you refuse to discuss his purposes![/i]

DAVID: I haven't refused, I've told you research will unveil His purposes, as we have in the past.

DAVID: It all depends upon the invented version of God you are using. I have mine vastly different from yours.

dhw: If it is OK for you to invent a God who has only one purpose and is in total control (except when he isn’t), why do you regard it as “superficial” and “allegorical” for me to suggest that he has a different purpose and is prepared to give up total control? And why do you regard your dependence on some vague future research as a justification for rejecting explanations which you yourself agree are logical?

It all depends on whose version of God's personality attributes is used in analyzing God's possible intentions. When you don your theistic hat, it has no resemblance to mine so we differ and will not change each other's conclusions.

DAVID: The attributes are not allegorical within themselves as descriptions, but as applied to God they have to be used allegorically, as all theologians demand.

dhw: So when you say your God only wanted only to design humans and their food supply, and he enjoys creating, what do these descriptions represent? Or are you and your mysterious theologians (do you really know them ALL?) trying to tell us that God himself is an allegory? If so, please tell us what he is meant to stand for.

The creator, who must be described allegorically when using common terms that describe us.

dhw: Why do you think he wanted us to have freedom in our development?

DAVID: Why not? Perhaps to recognize Him; perhaps to help with metabolic errors; perhaps to let us enjoy our development of abstractions: books, plays, movies, etc.

dhw: I like your use of “perhaps”, and wish you would apply it to such theories as your God wanting and having total control. Nice of him perhaps to want us to enjoy our own creations, which we might take as a parallel to himself enjoying his creations; recognition in a literal sense is impossible, since he doesn’t show himself to us, but perhaps you mean acknowledgement of his wonderful powers? Indeed, why not? In that respect, I’d say that we have inherited from him what you would call a “human” attribute.

DAVID: He made us human. He is not. See 'allegorical' above.

dhw: I have never said he is human. “Allegorical” means nothing until you tell us WHAT is allegorical and what it is meant to represent. Meanwhile, why do you regard it as impossible that a God who creates a being who thinks about things and responds positively or negatively to them, might also be capable of thinking about things and responding positively or negatively to them?

Allegorical definition: words describing God analogously; "Allegorical interpretation of the Bible is an interpretive method (exegesis) that assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense, which includes the allegorical sense, the moral (or tropological) sense, and the anagogical sense, as opposed to the literal sense." (my bold)

You never avoid the literal sense in thinking about God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum