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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 11:19 (1324 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

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

dhw: The analogy has nothing to do with planned steps. You keep telling us that a God who designs everything for one specific purpose (H. sapiens) is not “human”, whereas a God who designs a free-for-all (an ever changing variety of life forms) is “very human” and doesn’t know where he’s going. If I set out to design something unpredictable, I know where I’m going: the kaleidoscope and the ever changing variety are both precisely what I want. Once more: why is this “very human”, whereas wanting and creating nothing but humans plus food supply is not at all “human”?

DAVID: The bold states your God does not know where the end point will be. Yes it is purposeful without a desired end point, so your God is goalless in that approach.

Playing with words. If my goal is to enjoy every moment of my life, how does that come to mean that my life is goalless? Your God can also have a purpose/goal and not have a desired end point but simply be interested in what his amazing invention will lead to. And still you avoid telling us why wanting humans is not “humanizing” but wanting a free-for-all is.

DAVID: 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: Thank heavens, the word “goal” is therefore not an allegory! So if you say God’s goal was to design H. sapiens, it is not an allegory and does not humanize him. So if I say God’s goal was to design a vast and ever changing variety of life forms, it is not an allegory and does not humanize him. […] [My theory],though of course unproven, at least has the merit of fitting purpose to life’s history and of solving the problem of theodicy. Your only objection to it is that it endows your God with human attributes which he probably/possibly has.

DAVID: We cannot know if God has any human attributes, the reason for allegorical word interpretation.

I do not regard attributes such as logic, interest, enjoyment as “allegories”. You go on to quote an article about interpretation of the Bible, which contains allegories.

dhw: How on earth is this meant to be applied to your belief that your God had only one goal – to design H. sapiens? Or to my proposal that your God wanted the vast variety of life forms that make up life’s history? Or to my questioning why your God would have deliberately designed a system which contained disease-causing errors which he tried to correct, and disease-causing bugs and viruses? What is the “allegory”? Your use of the word is a pointless digression.

DAVID: My interpretation of God's human goal is obviously not allegorical. My assumptions as to how He might have arrived, in His thoughts, at that goal must be.

Even if you say that maybe he designed humans so that they could recognize or enjoy his work, what does such a statement represent “allegorically”? If wanting to create sapiens is not an allegory, why is wanting to create a free-for-all an allegory, and how is it allegorical to question why he might have deliberately designed bad bugs and viruses? This is a pointless digression, but for you perhaps a useful way to avoid answering awkward questions.