philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 29, 2018, 15:23 (2246 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.

DHW: Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But .. the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation ... you have to go beyond reason.

Not so. Darwin observed differences, and reasoned that those differences happened over time through reproduction and isolation. We see complexity and reason that it is too much for chance. We realize that you can not design that which you don't comprehend, and thus we can reason about what a designer must comprehend. We can see the good things, the variety, the beauty in our own minds and body and reason about the implications. As the Bible writer David said, "Oh Jehovah, we are fearfully and wonderfully made!" Inference is a type of reasoning.

TONY: ..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.

DHW: I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from.

See the bolded statement.

DHW: But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter.

How can impersonal and unconscious have a frame of reference for personality and consciousness?

TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)... If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.

Dhw: 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: I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.

My disagreement with Tony is more than slight. God's personality can only be imagined based on how we think and what we see in his works. "Imagined" is only slightly relatable.

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.

DHW: (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 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”?

I think you are trying to connect unconnected ideas. Creating his son, and together with his son other heavenly creatures, would likely teach him a great deal. Creating the universe would also teach him a great deal. Since when does someone not gain experience/knowledge through the process of creation? I think flora and fauna has purpose, but I also see traces of sheer joy in creation. I think the better question is, why shouldn't he create things that are simply whimsical and fun?

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 […]

DHW: My “why” concerned the reason for wanting a relationship... 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”.)

I do not think so. While 'anything is possible', if that were the way he is, why not just wipe the slate clean and start over after a rebellion?

DHW: 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?

DHW: 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.

That is truth. To understand that, you have to look at something deeper, something you have generally refused to acknowledge: love.