philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 28, 2018, 13:19 (2031 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: 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:

a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).

b) The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)

c) Defining a motive requires self-awareness.

d) 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.

DHW... Firstly, 1 and 2 (d) encapsulate my own dilemma. In all respects, a designer would have to be superior to what he designs, and so if the complexity of existence implies design, the even greater complexity of the mind that does the designing also implies design. So who designed the designer?... It requires as much faith to believe in an “always there” mind as to believe in the chance appearance and gradual evolution of minds out of ever changing combinations of matter.

Thanks for the structure changes. No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason. The answer this issue is not (necessarily) always there in terms of 'mind', rather it is that God's mind was not designed. This obviously does not answer where it came from, but it does stop the train from the endless 'what designed that' argument.

2 (a) This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before…Maybe. David thinks so (see below). Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.

Not really. If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from. 2A is also the reason I do not believe God created physical life first, nor do I believe he started off with masses of creations right off. It is, however, logical, that he created what he saw as his 'reflection' (son) first. Then, by observing the growth of his son, gained more insight that allowed for further creation.

DAVID: I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in the past..

DHW: Yes, we can only guess. Yes, your imagined God would have to be eternal, unless he himself was designed. ..although you don’t like guessing at his purpose for creating thinking humans, you came up with his wish to have a relationship with us (while remaining hidden). Why would he want to have a relationship with us?

First, there is a reason, and we were told the reason. To care for his creation(i.e. planet earth and the animals that reside upon it.) Secondly, the better question is why wouldn't He want a relationship with creatures that he designed in his image? We were unique in all of physical creation, a fact that is beyond dispute according to evidence.

You wrote: “For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.” I didn’t reword anything. However, you limited it to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only direct creation – Jesus – and then argued that the relief of boredom/loneliness ended there, and afterwards he needed more entities to enable him to “grow”. My point, of course, is that “growing” would be the continuing antidote to boredom and isolation.

Go to the discussions prior to that. Heh.

DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.

I am not at all certain he could have understood loneliness, or that it was not good for things to be alone, without having felt it, and the OT implies he did indeed understand it. Notice that almost all sentient creatures are created with mates.

DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.

DHW: You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?

Well, how about the logic of creation(i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfillment of God's logic.

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