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

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 11, 2021, 16:08 (237 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If your God gave us free will, it means he deliberately gave up control. If he is prepared to give up control over human behaviour for whatever reason, who is to say that he is not prepared to give up control over evolution for whatever reason?

DAVID: A weak take: the only control He gave up was over behaviour, not the direction of evolution.

dhw: You insist on missing the point. Do you regard your God’s giving up control over behaviour as “weak”? If so, why? If not, why not? And if he WANTED to give up control over evolution, why is that “weak”? The fact that you believe he controlled everything else does not make your belief into a fact, although you state it as if it were.

You are fuzzy. God's job is running evolution to suit His specific goals. It requires exact control, which He would not give up granting that He is creating with purpose. Our having free will has no effect on the desired direction of evolution.


DAVID: Don't you realize the appearance of humans requires very special design of the brain? Much more control not less. Your namby-pamby God just reappeared.

Don’t you realize that the appearance of dogs requires very special design of the nose? And don’t you realize that every form of life, including the single cell, requires very special design? Of course you do – that is your most potent argument for the existence of your God. Yes, our brain is special, and so is the dog’s nose, and so is the weaverbird’s nest. And there is nothing namby-pamby about a God who may have designed a system which in turn can produce every special feature of every special life form and every special natural wonder in the history of life on Earth.

Our brain is very special because of its special form with very large frontal lobes for abstract thought.


dhw: What is the allegory? You believe he enjoys creating, but you don’t believe he creates because he wants to enjoy creating. There is no allegory here!

DAVID: You still don't get it. All of God's thoughts must be considered from an allegorical viewpoint and interpretation.

dhw: No, I don’t get it. An allegory represents something. When you tell us that you are sure God enjoys creating, what does his enjoyment of creating symbolize?

DAVID: His whole personage must be viewed symbolically. His form of enjoyment may not be exactly like our personal experience.

dhw: What is enjoyment a symbol of? The rest of your post repeats the same dodge. You say you are sure your God enjoys creating, and your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and I'm sorry, but I have no idea how such statements can be regarded as allegorical or symbolic, and you obviously can’t explain to me what else these statements can possibly stand for, other than what they say. And so when I propose that God might have created life because he wanted to create something he could enjoy, and when you tell us you are sure that he enjoys creating and it is probable/possible that he has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, I hope you will understand why I find it impossible to regard it as a logical objection to my theory when you say you use these terms allegorically and symbolically.

We are so apart we will never meet in the middle. It is why you don't understand your humanized God. Every time I apply a term to God's possible thoughts or attitudes, I think of it in an allegorical meaning, since God is not a human person, and an exact application of the term's human meaning may not fully apply to Him. That proviso always applies..


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum