Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 14:26 (1178 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have to use human-meaning words in describing non-human God. It creates problems in your mind and mine as we both interpret meanings.

dhw: You used the word “enjoy”, and the only meaning of that word that you know is to gain pleasure from something. Why are you now pretending that you didn’t mean that? You are simply making a mockery of language.

DAVID: What you do not realize is trying to describe God makes a mockery of our language.

So what are you proposing? Nobody can know anything about God, right down to the question of his very existence, but if we can’t even use human language to discuss his possible nature and motives, we may as well close down this website.

DAVID: I have to use human terms in my descriptions, with no honest attempt to humanize Him as you do. There is a vast difference between us.

dhw: There is no difference between us, except your claim that when you say God enjoys something, or is interested in something, you don’t mean he enjoys something or is interested in something. When you said that God has good intentions, what did you mean if you did not mean God has good intentions?

DAVID: Again God's good intentions may not mean exactly what we mean about ourselves. we've had a long previous discussion about how to think of God while using our human terms, the only ones we have.

You and I know what we mean by good intentions, all-powerful, all-knowing, purposeful, in control, enjoyment, interest, mimicry etc. But you are only prepared to believe in your personal image of God, as described in human language, and you reject any alternative because alternatives are also in human language! This is no way to conduct a discussion on possible definitions of a possible God!