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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 29, 2021, 09:16 (109 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am not making your God “human”. I am pointing out that you have chosen to endow him with different human characteristics from mine. A God who decides to create life as an interesting free-for-all, or who likes to experiment, and who can even learn as he goes along, is not weak, or namby-pamby or unsure of himself. You are sure that we mimic him in many ways. But you are only prepared to accept one way and one goal, even though you have no idea why your always-in-control, know-it-all, well-intentioned God would choose to separately design millions of life forms etc. that have no connection with humans, in order to separately design humans plus lunch.

DAVID: I can't endow God who is a personage like no other person with any real human attributes as you do. You are trying to force them into my description. God is not a person. We have some attributes that seem to be similar. We both can think, we both can plan a design and make it. But His scale is much grander. Here I tend to follow most of religions' descriptions of His personage. You don't. Where I differ from religious thought is the issue of His pure love of us. He created us but there is no way to know if He loves us. He may create just to create, nothing more.

Of course God is not a person. But if you want to discuss his purposes and methods, as well as the subject of theodicy, it is totally impossible to do so without also including human attributes, i.e. attributes which we “inherit” from him. What do you mean by “real” attributes? Why is wanting total control less humanly “real” than not wanting control? Of course his scale is grander: do you really think I’m proposing that creating a universe and life is on the same scale as creating a painting or inventing a rocket? You say there is no way to know if he loves us. And yet you are sure that he has good intentions. You say he may create just to create. Why is it beyond belief, then, that he may create – as you have said yourself – because he enjoys creating, and since you have said yourself that you believe he watches his creations with interest, why is it beyond belief that he might have created them because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: As for lunch, the whole bush is our lunch, and your using it as a complaint is totally illogical.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous of all your efforts to defend your theory. The whole bush comprises millions of life forms, econiches, lunches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders, the vast majority of which are extinct and had no connection with us and our lunch. In your own words: “Extinct life has no role in current time” and “The current bush is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” How then can it be logical that the whole bush is our lunch?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum