philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 18:41 (2045 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.

DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.

dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?

DAVID: All I am pointing out is that most mature way to judge God is study His works. Not surprisingly , they are very complex and require design.

dhw: Our subject is purpose, not design. Thank you again for supporting the spectacle theory. I’m sorry you have not commented on the reason for your God wanting to prove himself.

God is purposely hidden. We study Him thru His works and of course He recognizes that approach. We can not separate purpose and design. They are hand in hand, as one implies the other.

TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.

dhw: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.

I can 't answer for Tony but God's creations are complex and reek of design and the designer.

DAVID: dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.

dhw: What in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? You have repeatedly told us that making humans was THE purpose, later reduced to one main purpose. That is not “pure” purpose, it is a specific purpose. When challenged, you have now also come up with my spectacle hypothesis – thank you – and the theory that he wants to prove himself to us, and also that he wants to have a relationship with us (though he remains hidden). If there is a God, and if he created life, it seems to me perfectly logical that he must have had a specific purpose. Clearly you can’t fault the logic of what I have suggested (which also fits in neatly with Tony’s idea of his God wanting to grow and develop) and so you try to dismiss it as “humanizing”. How do you know, and why is it even logical, that your God created beings with feelings that he doesn’t have?

'Pure purpose' is just a way of stating that God is always very purposeful in what HE does at all times. I thought the phrase would be understood as implying how purposeful God is. If God created the universe and life of course that shows purpose. I'm sure God has His own set of feelings, at which we can only guess, and I'm sure He recognizes ours. Back to Adler: "He is a personality like no other personality ". That is obvious. Adler states that any anthropomorphizing of God is an approach of 'superstition' not true religious thought, a paraphrased quote from Adler. I view your approach as trying to imagine God from your human point of view. Adler tells me not to do that.