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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 22, 2021, 20:35 (1101 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I edit nothing. All evolved forms come from previous required evolved forms, and the branching bush provides food for all through ecosystems. Please stop objecting to logic.

dhw: What do you mean by “previously required” evolved forms? ... And yes, the bush provided and provides food for all organisms, past and present. How does that make them all part of the goal of evolving us humans and our food supply?

'Previously required' is a reference to the point every new stage of evolutionary complexity is built upon the past forms and biological processes.

DAVID: All we can see is results. God's own views must be approached allegorically, which you fiercely resist as it severely limits your desired humanization of God.

dhw: The results are a vast diversity of life forms, natural wonders etc., 99% of which are extinct, with humans as the latest species to appear. That’s it. But you keep telling us that your God’s only purpose was humans, that he knew everything in advance, that he was always in control (except when he wasn’t), that he is selfless etc. You fiercely resist any alternative view of him. You are severely limited in your desired humanization of your God. And you still haven’t explained what any of these humanized attributes symbolize.

DAVID: Please stop humanizing God.

dhw: Please stop assuming that your own humanization of your God is not a humanization of your God, and that although it is probable/possible that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, it is not probable or possible.

Your confusions continues: All the terms I use are specifically meant as allegories. God is not human so human terms applied to him are special.

DAVID: God does not need enjoyment, a totally human need. Accept that God creates, and suppose nothing more about His possible emotional feelings. He may have none is the best way to think about Him.

dhw: I did not use the word “need” and asked you to drop it. I have no idea why you think the best way to think about your God is to imagine that he has no thought patterns or emotions similar to ours. I don’t even know why it is so important to you to prove that he exists if you think we should all regard him as an impersonal splodge of pure energy. Why are you hoping that his creation of bad viruses and bugs will turn out to have good reasons? Why do you insist that he tried to provide us with solutions to some of the problems caused by his design of life’s systems? And if he really is so impersonal, wouldn’t that fit in far better with his allowing an evolutionary free-for-all rather than exercising total control over everything (and enjoying doing so)?

There you go again. We don't know if God every creates anything for His own enjoyment. Everything is done for His own reasons, presumably somehow for our benefit, since He bothered to create us. I can't go further but as in the past will offer guesses when you ask. Just don't overinterpret the ideas I give.

DAVID: You have reviewed all of my/our guesses about God's possible human side. All guesswork on His possible human feelings, which may fully well not exist at all. Religions tell us God loves us. How do they know? I'm not use at all and neither was Adler, a religious philosopher believer. If Adler was of that opinion, why are you?

dhw: Yes, your interpretations of a possible God’s possible purpose, along with his possible method and possible desire for total control and possible selflessness and possible lack of feelings are guesswork, as are all my alternatives. I didn’t know that Adler was the ultimate authority on all things connected with God, but I only know his beliefs through you, so it’s your guesswork that we are discussing.

My current judgements about God and theism come from reading many books and articles as I started out at ground zero as a 'soft' agnostic, someone who hadn't thought about it much and His existence really didn't matter, until the question of whether it really mattered occurred to me as a decision I needed to research. I needed to come to some conclusion if what I found convinced me one way or the other. I had a neutral start, what about you?