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

by David Turell @, Friday, April 30, 2021, 19:40 (469 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The connection is God evolved all of them.

dhw: So how does that prove that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans?” Why design a thousand branches of the bush if you only want to design one?

Ask God. He chose to evolve us, and I don't question His reasons, although you do.

dhw: … what is all this nonsense about allegory and symbolism?

DAVID: I use the word allegorical only in its symbolic sense as it relates to discussions of God.

dhw: We now have the word “allegorical” being used allegorically. Please define what you mean by “allegorical”.

We must think of God's thoughts as symbolically different from us in every description. I use the symbolic sense of allegory.

DAVID: Please stop your silly twisting. All of evolution is/was God's work to produce his final goal of humans.

dhw: The silly twisting is entirely yours. Taken from “Miscellany”: “I cannot know His reasons for His chose of evolving us from bacteria, answered many times.” You have no idea why he evolved us from bacteria, and you have no idea why he found it necessary to achieve his goal (do his “work”) of evolving us (i.e. specially designing us) by first specially designing vast numbers of life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us except that he designed them. Whenever I ask for an explanation, you come up with dodges like the one above, or the great non sequitur that everyone has to eat.

Same answer as above: "Ask God. He chose to evolve us, and I don't question His reasons, although you do." I cannot have you extract from me an answer I cannot give, nor have you impose our curiosity on me. I have simply accepted what I see God did although somehow you want more, and I can't give it. Not as dodge, a position of theistic belief.

Our personal backgrounds:

dhw: I’d count myself as 50/50, but it doesn’t matter if you think I’m 40/60 or whatever, so long as you don’t pretend that this has a bearing on the logic of my arguments.

DAVID: I do not see God as human in any way.

dhw: Stop kidding yourself. The only way you can justify such a statement is by viewing God as a totally featureless blob, whereas you believe he is conscious, purposeful, in control, knows what he’s doing etc. And are you now denying that you hope the future will reveal his good intentions in personally designing “bad” bugs?

DAVID: All God's works are for the good. God is not a blob, but since you insist upon one definition we must view him symbolically.

dhw: I don’t insist on one definition! You do! According to you, at one moment your God is a non-human blob with no human attributes. But then he is no longer a blob with no human attributes. We learn that everything he does is for “the good”, and he had just one purpose – to create us, presumably for some special “good” – always knew exactly what he wanted, was always in total control, and even specially designed what we call “bad” bacteria and viruses, but these too must be for the good. But any other human attributes are unacceptable to you, and so your God becomes a non-human blob again.

God is not human in any sense, so we must grant any human attributes in a symbolic sense. Unfortunately we are trapped in discussions of Him at our human level. You can snicker all your want, but it is a major problem for you if interpreted so directly human as you pick apart my thoughts. I am forced to use human concepts/words in any discussion.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum