Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 11:59 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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?

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

QUOTES FROM YOU:
“He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”
“His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar
…(continues: "but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires." How do you know?)
“He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.”
“I am sure we mimic Him in many ways.”
“I’m sure He likes what he creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.”
“God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it.”
“I’m sure he sees what is going on with His own level of interest.”
“His human attributes IMHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.”
“He very well could think like us.”

You see how I hang on to every word of yours! And yes, we remain apart because your “very humanized” view of God is different from my “very humanized” alternative proposals. “Humanization” is irrelevant in all our discussions, as is the fact that we both use human language, and I hope this list will put an end to your constant attempts to use “humanization” in order to justify your opposition to perfectly logical theories. So now would you please explain what logical flaw you have found in my proposed solution to the problem of theodicy.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum