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

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 01, 2021, 19:33 (271 days ago) @ dhw

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?

DAVID: Ask God. He chose to evolve us, and I don't question His reasons, although you do. And later: I cannot have you extract from me an answer I cannot give, nor have you impose your 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.

dhw: Same old dodge. The question is not why he chose to evolve [specially design] us, but why – if we were his only goal – he chose to evolve [specially design] vast numbers of life forms, ecosystems etc. which had no connection with us. I am not questioning his reasons but your illogical theory, and clearly you have no idea why he would choose the method you impose on him in order to achieve the purpose you impose on him. But this is your fixed “theistic belief”, so we should leave it at that rather than you repeating the same string of dodges and me repeating the same string of responses to the dodges.

Given God is the creator, and we evolved from bacteria, how can you question my theory as as dodge? It doesn't fit the way you try to think about God which never appears to be a thorough exploration. I don't think hou appreciate the complexity of living biochemical reactions.

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

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

dhw: Still no definition. The symbolic sense of allegory would mean that when you say God’s thoughts are of just one purpose, of having total control, of always knowing what he is doing, and of doing everything for “good” reasons, all these terms represent something other than themselves. What else could they “symbolize”? Please stop pretending that by calling your belief in these human attributes “allegorical” you can mysteriously remove their “humanized” connotations, whereas if I propose that he might possibly experiment, or learn as he goes along, or want a free-for-all as opposed to a puppet show, you try to dismiss such alternatives as “humanizing”.

This statement misses the point. My version of God's personality, based on analyzing His total works from big Bang onward, tells me He is an exact purposeful planner with definite goals in mind. Note I must use human meanings in the words I use. I don't know if He does it for enjoyment or experimentation, your humanizing guesses. You guess, I don't try to.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I am not “snickering”. When you give us your “humanized” interpretation of God’s nature, and his one and only purpose and method of achieving it, either you mean what you say or you don’t. If you can’t find an answer to my questions, you can hardly expect me to withdraw because we are both forced to use human language – especially since you feel free to use human language in order to try and dismiss alternatives to your interpretations, even though you agree that they are logical!

Your 'probing' questions are unanswerable, requiring guesswork beyond what we can analyze from His total works. They are your problem leading to confusion in interpreting God's actions and thus agnosticism.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum