Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 13:57 (352 days ago) @ David Turell

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”?

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

Enjoy: to gain pleasure from something. We cannot know that ANY statement about God’s personality is true, but if you say that you believe your God enjoys creating, what other possible meaning do YOU wish to give to the word?

dhw: 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.

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

God may even not exist. But I am offering theories to explain why, if he exists, he might have created the history of life as we know it. Here are some of the things you have at one time or another been sure of: he is always in control, has only one purpose, has good intentions, enjoys creating, watches us with interest. You are perfectly happy to “humanize” him until it is pointed out to you that your “humanization” of him could lead to very different conclusions from your own: e.g. that if he enjoys creating and watches us with interest, his purpose might be to create things that he enjoys creating and watching with interest. But if you wish to add “in his own way”, that’s fine with me.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum