philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 24, 2018, 09:29 (2040 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DHW: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself.

TONY: Ok, first, when have I said he wanted/needed to prove himself to you?

You quoted my response to David. I was not complaining that your God didn’t do it my way, but was challenging David’s logic.

TONY: From a biblical perspective, there are millions of non-material creatures that KNOW he exists.

What evidence do you have that these creatures exist?

TONY: He doesn't need to PROVE he exists. Instead, he has been slandered and needs to vindicate his name which has been tarnished by the slander.

So he made all these creatures, including those that preceded humans by a few thousand million years, in order to vindicate his name, which had been slandered by...humans?

TONY: The logic is, the creatures were created, performed a purpose, and then were allowed to perish in their own due time. Why does our opinion of what is weird matter in the slightest? Further, who are we to judge his methods? Understand them, certainly, but judge them?

We are talking about his purpose for creating life. You agree that initially it could have been boredom. Now it’s self-vindication. There is no judgement involved here, only the search for logical explanations.

DHW: Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.

TONY: Because a beeline to humanity would have produced a world unfit to support our living.

Fair enough, but that was a reference to David’s illogical coupling of God’s powers with his anthropocentrism. My point was the great free-for-all of the higgledy-piggledy bush which your God created (though now you say he didn’t) to relieve his boredom and isolation.

TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.

DHW: If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.

TONY: […] Stop blaming the lawmaker for the acts of the criminal. (Later: DHW's reasoning is flawed because he blames the lawmaker for the criminals.)

I am not blaming the law-maker! I don’t even know if he exists! I am pointing out that faith in religion also leads to kicks in the gonads. Do you deny it?

TONY: Yet, what I largely see are the arguments that I have presented in some form or fashion. "He didn't do it my way" or "Why doesn't he just answer the questions directly?" Some variation on that theme.

You totally misunderstand the arguments. I keep challenging the logic of David’s hypotheses, but I also offer hypotheses of my own: his “way” (if he exists) was to create an ever changing bush of life to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation; he doesn’t answer questions directly because he is watching the spectacle, not directing it. I invite you to challenge the logic of the hypothesis, just as I challenge your hypotheses and David’s.

TONY: Would a designer that is indifferent to suffering build in so many mechanisms for healing, pleasure, joy, love, pride, etc.? If he is indifferent to suffering, why bother allowing us pleasure at all?

First of all, you say it was not your God who did all this, but Christ and his spiritual offspring. Secondly, I see that the mechanism has created a mixture of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, and so it is not unreasonable to argue that, if your God exists, he wanted to design a mechanism which would create a mixture of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. If you agree that the hypothesis is reasonable, it’s up to you what conclusions you extrapolate about his nature. If I go to the theatre to relieve the boredom of my isolation, I get very different feelings from watching a comedy and watching a tragedy. But I learn something from both. Perhaps that‘s how your God “grows and develops”, but you have not yet told us what you think this process entails.

xxxxxxxx

This will be my last post until Wednesday at the earliest.