philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 22:06 (2039 days ago) @ dhw

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.

DHW: 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.

As an author, you should know better than to judge a book by the preface. Read the book.

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.

DHW; 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.

In an extremely limited sense of the word.

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?

DHW: 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.

DHW: 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.

'Sphere of influence', expansion of power, mastery of his own abilities, whatever you want to call it.

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.

DHW; 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).

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