A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Sunday, June 27, 2021, 14:52 (1243 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same empty confusion. If God is in change, history shows exactly what you object to. It is your same tunnel-vison of how God might work. All the stages and branches you object to are/were required to develop complexity stepwise and offers a required huge food supply along the way.

dhw: I don’t object to the stages and branches! They are facts. I object to the theory that all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and our lunch.

Even if your God has no goals, the one I believe in has. Adler and I view our unusual result of evolution as the primary clue for that conclusion.

DAVID: Yes, as you note, I recognize and accept the problems raised by the issue of theodicy. I don't pretend the problems raised are not there. Why do you pretend I did that? Unfair!!

dhw: In response to my efforts to find an explanation for theodicy, you wrote: “All you can see is the dark side. You should be thankful you are here.” Theodicy IS the problem of the dark side. And your solution (apart from your faith that one day it will be shown that the dark side is actually good, because you believe your God’s intentions are always good) is to look on the bright side, which I can only take to mean that we should forget about the dark side.

Wrong take. I raised the issue.

DAVID: We keep explaining away the issues human judgment thinks, before adequate research, the so-called mistakes. My optimistic view is we will continue to logically explain God's questionable works. You present a pessimistic muddle forgetting the power of our God-given brain. Turellism certainly exists in the minds of those searching scientists who present all the fodder for discussion I present and interpret from a Godly viewpoint.

dhw: It was you who introduced the term “errors”, but claimed they were inevitable and were therefore not God’s fault. The problem of theodicy is not confined anyway to what you regard as errors. There is no pessimistic muddle: I have actually used my (perhaps God-given) brain to try and explain why all the “nasties” that create the problem of theodicy exist (i.e. through his possible decision to create a free-for-all). But instead of considering the logic of this explanation, you prefer to revert to the silly “humanizing” argument – as if 1) it is possible to discuss motives and methods without some sort of humanization, 2) as if you didn’t humanize him yourself, and 3) as if you hadn’t agreed repeatedly that he probably/possibly and, last week, surely has some human attributes. (See also under “Miscellany”). Your alternative solution to theodicy is to look on the bright side.

I do not consider a free-for-all, giving up control, as God-like. My view of your weak humanized God is not a silly notion, but a true analysis of the image you present. That He must have some mental attributes that mimics our human attributes or we mimic Him is reasonable, but in no way humanizes Him, a personage like no other person.