philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 30, 2018, 20:37 (2245 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: 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. […]

DHW You omitted the three explanations of life’s origin that I was referring to! I will therefore repeat them: an unknown mind called God, the creative genius of chance, the evolving intelligence of materials. Belief in any of these requires faith beyond reason.

Tony: Faith is "assured expectation". Without reason, there is no assurance.

DHW: Once more: I have no more idea how personality and consciousness, or the complexities of life, can arise from impersonal materials than I have of how personality and consciousness and a designing mind can always have been there, without a source, for ever and ever in the form of your God. Hence my agnosticism.

Tony: Neither can I, hence the reason I believe(as opposed to 'have faith') that his consciousness grew over time from formless energy.

Here we are the same yet different: I think God is energy but was always conscious at the level that is currently present. I don't think formless energy plasma can develop intelligence and consciousness on its own.

TONY: I think you are trying to connect unconnected ideas. […] 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?

DHW; I love it. You are coming closer and closer to my hypothesis that your God created material life as a spectacle for himself to enjoy. And I will also go along with you that the spectacle would widen his experience through pleasures and pains unknown to the spiritual world (unless you think, for example, that spirits have sex, eat chocolate, play cricket, or die of cancer).

Tony: No, not really. I believe there was far greater purpose beyond mere 'spectacle'. However, He is described as the 'happy god', in addition to his other qualities. I see no reason he would not take joy in his creation. I simply disagree that 'spectacle' or 'boredom relief' was his primary purpose. When a designer designs a car, he has a purpose in mind, and then where possible, he layers aesthetics and comforts into the design to the extent possible without compromising the purpose.

DHW: He “grows” and learns through the ever-changing spectacle, which you agree may well have begun with his desire to end his boredom and/or loneliness. He may have intervened if the spectacle itself became boring (Chixculub) or he didn’t like the way it was heading (Noah’s flood). How does that invalidate the hypothesis of the on-going spectacle?

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

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

DHW: I am constantly acknowledging love, and even asked you a few days ago whether your love for your family had no meaning or relevance without your having faith in something bigger than yourself. How does “love” counteract the logic of your God continuing to relieve his initial boredom/loneliness by creating the on-going spectacle of material life, filled as it is with love and hate, pain and pleasure etc.?

Tony: Because love is not self-serving.

David: No, love can be rewarding in receiving love in return. There can be the heartbreak of rejection.

I do not disagree. However, consider what you said. It can be rewarding to BE loved(i.e. receiving the other person's non-self-serving love.) Rejection certainly does hurt, but rejection is not love.

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