Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:11 (51 days ago) @ dhw

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. [..]

dhw: 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!

DAVID: We had long previous discussions about how to think about God and describe Him. We ended up even disagreeing there after I quoted Feser and you didn't accept Feser. I clearly see your preferred humanizing approach. What theological texts/advise have you used to base your approach?

dhw: I do not study theology. What has that got to do with our discussion? Why don’t you stick to the subject? If the solution to theodicy lies in definition of God, we have to define God. We can only do so in our human language. We both know what our terms mean: your proposed solution to theodicy is that you define God as all-powerful, all-knowing, always in control, with good intentions, but he sometimes loses control, and we don’t yet know what his good intentions are. I offer an alternative solution, which is that he enjoys creating, watches his creations with interest, and designed the mechanism which enables them all to design their own means of survival. The resultant free-for-all has produced what we humans consider to be the mixture of good and bad that has led to the problem of theodicy. Nobody knows the truth, but inevitably we both have to use human language to formulate our theories. What’s the problem?

Your solutions define a very humanized God in my view. So we remain apart in our approach to defining God's personality


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum