Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, August 21, 2021, 15:47 (971 days ago) @ dhw

FESER

DAVID: He observes in His Godly way, not in a human sense.

dhw: Good. So we now we both have him spectating/watching/observing with interest in a godly way. How does that mean he doesn’t watch us with interest?

In Adler's analysis, the odds that He is interested in us is 50/50. I can accept that.

dhw: I don’t like the silly argument that a God who created us could not possibly have endowed us with some of his own attributes. Nor do you, because you agree that he possibly/probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are “sure that we mimic Him in many different ways”. But you think you can discredit a logical proposal merely by using the word “humanize” if the “mimicry” does not correspond to the “humanizing” you believe in.

DAVID: We are in an area of discussion imagining how we might be made to mimic Him, but since He is not a human person the mimicry is uncertain.

dhw: So why do you insist that only your “humanization” of him is possible, and dismiss my humanizations because they are humanizations?

You have to create a false concept of our view that we 'humanize' to defend yourself. Our position is He is not ever human in actions or thoughts even if we have to use 'human' terms in our descriptions. Review our past discussions