Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2021, 19:54 (1112 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If your God gave us free will, it means he deliberately gave up control. If he is prepared to give up control over human behaviour for whatever reason, who is to say that he is not prepared to give up control over evolution for whatever reason?

A weak take: the only control He have up was over behaviour, not the direction of evolution.

DAVID[…] God cannot give up evolutionary control if He wants to reach a goal He desires.

dhw: Perhaps the goal he desires is an unpredictable history, with his great invention constantly producing amazing and unexpected wonders, including humans with their own almost unlimited capacity for invention. Just a theory. In order to achieve this goal, he can and must give up evolutionary control.

Don't you realize the appearance of humans requires very special design of the brain? Much m ore control not less. Your namby-pamby God just reappeared.

dhw: What is the allegory? You believe he enjoys creating, but you don’t believe he creates because he wants to enjoy creating. There is no allegory here!

DAVID: You still don't get it. All of God's thoughts must be considered from an allegorical viewpoint and interpretation.

dhw: No, I don’t get it. An allegory represents something. When you tell us that you are sure God enjoys creating, what does his enjoyment of creating symbolize?

His whole personage must be viewed symbolically. His form of enjoyment may not be exactly like our personal experience.

dhw: Because maybe your purposeful God wanted to create something he would enjoy, and there is more enjoyment to be had from watching the unpredictable than from watching the predictable. And before you cry: “humanizing”, why is that more “humanizing” than a God who enjoys exercising total control as he pulls the puppets’ strings? And for good measure, let us not forget your claim that he enjoys creating, in which case why would he enjoy creating the bad bugs and viruses?

DAVID: How do you know God 'needs' enjoyment? The bold was a possibility I suggested but not ever sure of.

dhw: I did not say he needed it, but I proposed that maybe he wanted it. Just a theory, tying in with your statement on Sunday March 6th, when you wrote on this thread: “I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating”, which you confirmed on Monday March 8: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.” Good reasoning.

But again God's enjoyment must be viewed allegorically as explained.

DAVID: You pounce on every possible morsel in finding me agreeing with you about your distorted humanized view of God.

dhw: In our search for logical explanations of life’s mysteries, we both present theories and we test them. I don’t know why you object to my quoting you when you agree with my logic. My proposal is no more and no less humanized than your own, and what possible grounds can you have for saying it is distorted when nobody knows the truth? I only ask for your acceptance that the theory is possible. The fact that nobody knows the truth does not make my theory impossible.

I view His attributes allegorically and you misuse my statements which I hope you now realize are symbolic.

DAVID: God may not have any human attributes as a personage like no other human person. God is not you or any of us in some ethereal form.

dhw: Very true. God may not even exist at all, but that never stopped you from proposing theories about him.

Or you.