philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 15:44 (2040 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

TONY: Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).

Ugh! It would take all of us a lifetime to discuss purposes at individual level. However, you seemed happy enough to join in the discussion on an all-encompassing purpose, and informed us that you thought your God created Christ and got him to create other superbeings to help create the universe and life, because he wanted to grow and develop and needed to end his isolation in order to do so. I consider this to be similar if not identical to the hypothesis that an eternity of isolation would have been unbearably boring, and creating the spectacle of life would have given your God a vast range of new experiences to help him grow and develop. Do you no longer consider this to be worth discussing?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.

Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory. Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.