Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 17:59 (51 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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?)

How do you know He does have human desires?

dhw: “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.”

These quotes are couched in terms of possibility. God is not human and my analysis of His personality from His works show determination and purpose and direct intention to reach His goals, a primary one of which is sapiens and very obvious from our highly unusual abilities compared to any other organism.


dhw: 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.

My 'humanizing' that you attempt to invent is because I am trapped in the words I have to use. God is in no way human, but may well have human attributes as we study Him. Your God's actions are perfectly logical if one assumes He is unsure of himself, needs to experiment, and wants to set up free-for-alls for His enjoyment in watching the fracas, all humanizing traits. And I agree your theories fit the history when viewed from the point of your version of God. Conclusion: we see God totally differently.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum