Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 03, 2021, 10:35 (50 days ago) @ David Turell

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

I produced a long list of quotes in which David agreed that his God certainly/probably/possibly has human traits and emotions.

DAVID: How do you know He does have human desires?

I don’t. I simply offer alternative theories to explain evolution and theodicy. How do you know that he exists/individually designed every life form and food bush/his sole purpose was to design humans and their food bush? You don’t. And unfortunately, your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: These quotes are couched in terms of possibility.

That is the nature of theories, except that most of your terms are not of possibility but of fact and/or of your personal certainty.

DAVID: 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.

You have categorically stated repeatedly that his only goal was to produce sapiens (do you want another list of quotes?) – epitomized by your claim that all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. “A primary goal” means there are other primary goals. If that is what you now believe, please tell us his other primary goals. Meanwhile, all my alternative theories also show determination and purpose and ”direct intention to reach His goals.”

DAVID: My 'humanizing' that you attempt to invent is because I am trapped in the words I have to use.

It is impossible for us to discuss any subject without using words. Nobody “trapped” you into saying any of the above quotes, and you and I both know exactly what the words mean.

DAVID: God is in no way human, but may well have human attributes as we study Him.

Thank you – another quote for my list.

DAVID: 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.

I reject “unsure of himself”, but the other terms are correct, and I’m glad you understand them. There is no language problem, and your “humanizations” are no less “human” than my own, but are different. Your conclusion is therefore also correct, and so you are left only with the problem that your vision of God leads you to an illogical theory of evolution and an explanation of theodicy which amounts to no more than that you don’t have one, but you believe the future will reveal your God’s good intentions. My own theory offers a clear explanation of theodicy, but you have ignored my request that you point out any logical flaw in it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum