Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 12:52 (358 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

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

dhw: Thank you. You yourself wrote that you were sure he is interested in us. I make that 100%. And you even wrote that he “is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.” For some reason, though, you reject the possibility that he creates because he wants to have the enjoyment of creating. All part of your non-humanizing humanizing.

DAVID: I never defined His interest as 100%, as you now wish.

If you are sure of something, it ought to = 100%.

DAVID: God's enjoyment is not like ours. I'm trapped in having to use words with human meanings.

How the heck do you know that…other way round… our enjoyment is not like God’s? Why shouldn’t he say to himself: “I like it” and mean exactly the same as we mean when we say “I like it”?

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

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I have reviewed our past discussions and have noted your statements that it is probable/possible that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are sure that “we mimic him in many different ways”. That does not mean he is a human being. It means that – if he exists – as our creator he has given us certain thought attributes and emotions similar to his.

DAVID: I certainly agree with this point of yours. Similar, but never the same.

Why my point? I am quoting you! Enjoyment is enjoyment, interest is interest, mimicking is mimicking. Nobody would claim that God is a human being, but if you can speculate on which of his attributes he has created in us, then so can I.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum