philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 17, 2018, 11:44 (2041 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am juxtaposing entries for the sake of coherence.

DHW : Previously you thought science was the “best evidence”, but I always get the impression that you regard the Bible as the best evidence!

TONY: I don't see the disparity between the Bible and Science that most people claim exists. In fact, I see that Science routinely confirms the Bible.

You go on to talk about Christ as the “first creation”, God teaching him all about justice, power, wisdom, love etc. You believe in angels and spirits and Satan. This is all Bible without a jot of science. As I’ve commented under “pointy eggs”, science has many mysteries to solve, but I have no knowledge of it ever having provided the best evidence for your own solution to the mystery.

TONY: His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God. Everything else was created through the son, by God's will and using God's power. Of course, it also talks about work being delegated down the line to other creatures as well... etc.

So God didn’t create anything except Christ, told him how to build the universe (and presumably life), and Christ passed on the instructions to other superbeings. So Christ must have created them too (and Satan). I don’t really understand why your God had to do it this way, instead of doing it himself, as per Genesis 1:1, and I don’t know what all this is relevant to. Science as the best evidence? God’s purpose? He still wants to “grow”, doesn’t he?

Dhw (to David): Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?

DAVID: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but at the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.

TONY: I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.

I’ll leave you both to squabble over what the Bible says. You can also squabble over purpose: David thinks God created a spectacle to see how humans handle what he already knows about. (David, do you watch King Lear at ‘mental’ or ‘zoo’ level?) Tony thinks the purpose was for God’s own growth and development (learning from new experiences).

DHW: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. Why is that trivial?

TONY: Labeling it as entertainment to relieve boredom trivializes it. Did you marry your wife because you were bored? Would you have ever said that of yourself to her face? Or have children because you were bored? Or maybe you provided good things and taught them good things because you were bored? If I characterized the entirety of all the works of your hands through your entire life as "Maybe DHW was just bored" would you feel as if I had just trivialized everything you've done?

You used the trivializing word entertainment. My word was spectacle (though that could include entertainment). Your analogy is just about as false as it could be. I was born into a world full of problems and opportunities and emotions and needs. If you want a human analogy to your God’s isolated situation, then imagine yourself alone in an empty cell with nothing to see, nothing to do, no one to talk to, nothing, nothing, nothing except your own company for ever and ever. Wouldn’t you long for something to relieve the tedium?

DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]

TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.

You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.

dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!

DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.

Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.