philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 14, 2018, 10:07 (2262 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.

TONY: Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.

Why is that reasonable? The only form of reproduction we know of is material. I thought you believed the first cause was a unique “spiritual” (as opposed to material) entity you call God. Do you imagine him reproducing himself as other gods? See also below on “spiritual beings”.

TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.

DHW: I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.

TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?

They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?

TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.

Dhw: No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?

TONY: Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.

Agreed re plants, but these other forms of life that we are unaware of are a problem for me. In previous posts you have insisted that we should not believe in things that haven’t been observed (a major and justified objection to my hypothesis that intelligent cells may be capable of inventiveness that goes beyond their powers of adaptation), but here you are conjuring up visions of unknown life forms which you appear to regard as possibly even more real than those we know. Again, what is the purpose? This whole discussion began when you insisted that we should look for the purpose of everything, not just of ourselves.

dHW: In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.

TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.

The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?

David: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.

How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?