philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 24, 2018, 23:24 (2251 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Spectacle for entertainment is humanizing.

dhw: So is Tony’s “proud and wanting credit”, so is your God wanting to prove himself, wanting a relationship, and your earlier support for the idea of a spectacle. What’s wrong with that? Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?

Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental

TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".

dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?

DAVID: You have again imagined God from a human point of view: "Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age." Comparing God to us!

Tony: See above for your insistence that you know how God doesn’t think, but here I am replying to Tony’s arguments. He claims that although his God’s first creation may have been the result of boredom, generally relief from boredom and isolation is frivolous. It is not.

Tony and I have our different views.

dhw to Tony:): 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. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.

DAVID: My belief is not based on God's pattern of thought. Where did that idea come from?

dhw: When I point out the logical fallacies in your hypotheses, you claim that God doesn’t think like humans. As if you knew.

Answered above. He is not at our level of thought

DAVID: Evolution by definition must have advances and discards. How else would it advance? Can you imagine an Earth filled with every organisms still existing from day one of origin of life? Would nature be balanced in that state?

dhw: Of course it would be balanced. But then I agree you would not have evolution, which in my view does depend on an ever changing balance. What is your point?

Evolution involves of loss of species as you agree. 99% gone means nothing as a rebuttal.