Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, August 23, 2021, 14:47 (1186 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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”?

Just more attempts at humanizing God. We cannot know your statement is in any way probable when applied to God's personality.

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.

dhw: 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.

Then just stop assuming His attributes are exactly like ours, or even somewhat. They may even not exist.