philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 25, 2018, 00:01 (2034 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: Ok, so the quotes are killing the word count. Unless I mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them. Also, unless I am mistaken, you keep asking for evidence of things that both David and myself have repeatedly acknowledged have to be taken on faith. Obviously, and by definition, no such proof can be given.

Kill the unnecessary quotes to have room for reply. That is what I do.

dhw: Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else. I am assuming you are familiar with the concept of Architect, Foreman, and Construction Crew. If not, then we really have no common language to speak from, because you work on the assumption that one entity did it all, despite what I have actually said.

As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.

The concept of one entity becoming self-aware is not insignificant. The concept of one entity becoming aware of the fact that it is alone is also not insignificant, particularly given that it had no frame of reference to make that realization from. This is a point which I think you kind of gloss over, defining it as boredom and isolation. I agreed, in a very limited context, in that once this entity became aware of the fact that it was alone, it makes sense that it would seek to end that isolation. However, the novelty of having even one other organism would likely have been sufficiently interesting enough for an extended period of time to curb any 'boredom', particularly as these two organisms learned about each other, most likely the elder teaching the younger until they reached a point where more entities were needed in order to continue growing their consciousness. Doesn't the fact that even single-celled organisms seek out some form of community speak to you of the importance of it? How could a designer that did not recognize that importance plan for it, and design the mechanisms to support it into his designs.

As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. We are designed with both the carrot and the stick within us at a chemical level, yet there are four carrots (endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin) and one stick(cortisol). Why would an god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?

As for how God grows, in my limited human ability to conceptualize the magnitude of such things, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence. Though I strongly suspect a few billion years has made him far better at it than we will ever be capable of imagining.

David: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.

I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.