philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 27, 2018, 16:39 (2248 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: ..it requires faith to believe in...God.

David(Not Tony): Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring.

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

DAVID: Evolution is a guide to purpose. Look at what has appeared against all odds, humans!

DHW: All life appeared against the odds, and of course if God exists he will have had a purpose. And I have conceded that the complexities suggest design, but not necessarily one designer (atheistic panpsychist hypothesis), and your designer is no less of a mystery than the origin and complexities of life.

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.

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

DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.

DHW: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.

Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:

• 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
  
• 2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
  • Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
    
  • The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
    
  • Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
    
  • A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
• 3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.

Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.

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