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

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 15:59 (1095 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Umpteenth time: God chose to evolve us and history shows the pattern of evolution God created as He finally reached the design of humans, His final goal. Each aspect of evolution has been explained to you with rational theories of God's reasons.

dhw: Umpteenth time: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms, and the pattern of evolution is of thousands of different twigs and branches, only one of which led to humans. You have never ever managed to offer a rational theory to explain why a God whose ONLY goal was to design humans proceeded to design thousands of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. The only reason you have ever given is that they all provide food for one another, which does not mean that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

Unless living things eat they die. I know you eat every day.

dhw: … what is all this nonsense about allegory and symbolism?

DAVID: Each statement I make about God is allegorical.

dhw: You just keep repeating the word as if it provided an explanation. Do you or do you not believe that your God exists, that he had one purpose (humans), that he specially designed every life form etc.? If so, what does God’s existence, purpose etc. symbolize?

When we use human descriptive terms about God and His thinking, since He is no human, they must be allegorical.

dhw: You agree that my alternatives are logical, and my logic may be the same as his. Nobody knows.

DAVID: Not what I said about you. What I have granted is your humanized God reaches conclusions logically based on His humanized personality. Your God is not my God as I perceive God.

dhw: I do not have God reaching conclusions. I offer alternative interpretations of his possible nature based on the facts of life’s history. Your own humanized version of God (“My God is fully purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing and never deviates from his goals”) when applied to life’s history results in the absurd conclusion that he never deviated from his goal of designing humans, which he achieved by designing thousands and thousands of life forms and econiches and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

Your conclusions of God's nature are distinctly not mine. That humans are here as a result of God's works is not an absurd conclusion, and deny your distortions of history as created by God.

DAVID: I've never said your thought about God creating us 'in His own image' was impossible. His 'image' is fully allegorical you must agree.

dhw: You are playing with the word image. An allegory is indeed an image: The character of Giant Despair in Pilgrim’s Progress symbolizes despair. “In his own image” does not symbolize anything; it means that we resemble him in some way.

DAVID: Yes, in some way. Allegorical meaning.

dhw: “In some way” is not an allegory. Please give us your definition of the word.

"In His image" is allegorical is 't it?

Our personal backgrounds:
(No need to repeat our earlier posts.)

dhw: I’d count myself as 50/50, but it doesn’t matter if you think I’m 40/60 or whatever, so long as you don’t pretend that this has a bearing on the logic of my arguments.

DAVID: The logic of your arguments must start with the kind of God you envision.

dhw: Wrong again. The logic of my arguments starts with the world as I see it. I then try to extrapolate what kind of God - if he exists - might have created that world. You, on the other hand, start with a fixed image of your God and try to impose it on life’s history. “Theodicy” is a prime example. You pretend that you do not “humanize” him, but you hope to find an explanation of “bad” bacteria and viruses that will show his “good” intentions, and you even have him trying to find ways of correcting the errors resulting from the system of life that he designed.

I do not see God as human in any way. You do not see the world as I do. I am extremely conservative in my views and you seem to me to be very liberal. Different conclusions will result.