philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 27, 2018, 19:38 (2248 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

Tony: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:

• 1:The complexity of existence implies design.

Agree

Tony:[*]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).

Agree

Tony: [*]The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)

Agree

Tony:[*]Defining a motive requires self-awareness.

Agree

Tony [*]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.

Agree

Tony: [/list]
[*]3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.

Agree

[/list]

Tony: 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.

You have simply supported my view and Adler's that God is a person like no other person and we cannot fully appreciate that difference from us..

I just want a list of agreed points that we can refer back to, add to, and build upon.

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