philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 17, 2018, 15:21 (2045 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

If you will accept that one main purpose was the creation of humans to relate to God, it all fits together. To create life the complexity of biochemistry had to be designed. Design requires a designer with purpose, which is all you will accept. Your purpose of spectacle is trivial and humanizing God. I know that as a playwright you are very impressed with spectacle. The Grand Canyon is much more impressive than any play I've seen, although I've enjoyed your writings.