philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 13:00 (2032 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Unless I am mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them.

You take them out of context. I do not say God is vain or should have done it my way or is to blame for the violent acts of fundamentalists. I challenge statements to the effect that he wants to prove himself, that the whole of evolution was geared to the production of Homo sapiens, that you need faith to lead a good life.

TONY: 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.

Of course proof can’t be given for ANY of the hypotheses, including my own (which is not a belief), for which you and David demand proof. Hence my agnosticism.

TONY: 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.

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement on 16 September that “His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God.” I thought Genesis told us your God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and man, and I don’t recall any mention of the son in that account, or of a construction crew.

TONY: 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.

You have accepted boredom as a possible starting point, I regard life is hugely significant, I have never downgraded nature’s complexity, and theories concerning your God’s purposes do not downplay anything – they are hypothetical explanations, not judgements.

TONY: [...] 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.

Did I say it was insignificant? I don’t define anything as boredom and isolation! Isolation is what your God would become aware of, and boredom would be the consequence. You go on to claim that one other organism would initially “curb any boredom”, but then more would be needed. I agree. Hence the proliferation of life forms evolving from the single cell, and I suggest that your God (if he exists) would have designed the mechanisms that led to all forms of community.

TONY: 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. […] Why would a god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?

Each life continues for a limited period; each organism is capable of different responses and behaviours. If your God exists, I suggest this is what he WANTED to create, and his motive was to provide a spectacle to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. This can also entail learning, as say below. I don’t know why you feel this has no explanatory power.

TONY: As for how God grows, 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.

Sounds good to me, except “sphere of influence”. I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.

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.

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

And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).

dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.

TONY: Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. […] Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.

Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.

dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?

DAVID: 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.

What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.