philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, September 29, 2018, 10:13 (2034 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason.

Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But since nobody knows it, the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation (an unknown mind called God, the creative genius of chance, the evolving intelligence of materials), you have to go beyond reason.

TONY: 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.

I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from. David’s answer is the usual philosophical cop-out:

DAVID: There is no designer of God if He is eternal, which is my view. First cause by definition is 'first'.

But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter. The fact that you disagree does not make “first cause” an argument for God.

TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)

dhw: This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before… Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.

TONY: Not really. If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.

This is what I use in my efforts to understand the workings of God’s mind (if he exists), but David rejects such an approach, and I’m not sure that you approve either. As for imagining eternity and infinity, there is nothing in my own life that can give me a frame of reference.

TONY: 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.

(I don’t believe either that he started with masses of creations, since I believe in evolution from single cells onwards! ) I see no connection between hypothetical spiritual offspring and physical life. How would watching his son grow “allow” him to create bacteria? And if your God could expand his experience (and presumably his range of relationships) through other spiritual beings, why do you think he bothered with the dodo (extinct) or the duckbilled platypus (extant)? Did they enable him to “grow”?

DHW (to David): Why would he want to have a relationship with us?

TONY: 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.)

As above: why did he create the dodo and the duckbilled platypus for us to look after?

TONY: 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 […]

My “why” concerned the reason for wanting a relationship. David’s answer is below. So ignoring the problem of the dodo and the platypus, here is a suggestion linked with your own beliefs: could it be that he designed us in his image because he got bored with the company of his fellow spirits, couldn’t use them to “grow” any more, and thought of creating a new experience – physical life, with all its unique pains and pleasures? I’m not asking you to believe it, but just to say if you think it is possible. (Please don’t forget your agreement that initially, for his very first offspring, my “idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on”.)

DAVID: The relationship comes from God creating consciousness in our brains which is a purposeful act to allow us to recognize Him. No other being knows of Him. No other explanation is needed.

So the relationship and the purpose of the relationship consists in God wanting us to recognize him. How very human of him. But all that great bush of organisms from bacteria to the duckbilled platypus and ourselves in order that we should say: “God did it”? I have to say it’s not my idea of a relationship, but then I’m only human.

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?

DAVID: I'm sure his logic is like ours. But you cannot envision God except as a human being in thought.

If you’re sure he has our thoughts, and his logic is like ours, I don’t know why you object to my proposing that he has human-like thoughts and logic.

TONY: Well, how about the logic of creation (i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfilment of God’s logic?

Definition of what? If God exists, I would certainly accept that he used science and maths. But the logic we are discussing here concerns purpose, not means.