philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 13:23 (2243 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you he ended his isolation by creating the universe and life in all its many forms extant and extinct. He must have had a reason for doing so. Once more: why do you find it illogical to suggest that he might have been bored with his isolation?

DAVID: My view is that God has never been alone. Note my constant position that God always existed and made one universe after another. Why should we be the only one in an eternity of time?

No matter how many material universes and humans (see below) he created, as first cause pure energy (according to you) he must still have preceded their creation and had a motive for creating them.

DAVID: As for humanizing, do you realize any thoughts about His purposes and motives by humans will involve human level thought and a review of our emotions as we set out a purpose for Him. I admit that some of my suppositions are 'human', but I only think about His reasons because you push me to do so.

Of course it’s humanizing, and you actually agreed that he thinks like us, but then chickened out again with waffle about levels. And of course I push you to think about reasons, when you keep on and on about his actions being purposeful. I’m only surprised that you never thought about his possible reasons before – other than insisting that the purpose of this universe (and presumably all the others you now believe in) was to create the brain of Homo sapiens or of other-universe equivalents.

DAVID: On my own I have a great deal more of simply an acceptance of Him without delving into his motives, which have nothing to do whether He exists or not. I see proof of Him in the definite requirement for a designer.

There are two separate subjects here: 1) whether God exists or not, 2) if he exists, what are his purposes and what is his nature (the two go together)? You know my neutral position on 1), so on this thread we have moved on to 2).

DAVID: With a mind like His, of course He would design and He would want to create sentient beings who would wonder how He did it. Unlike Tony love is not an issue, only a possibility. I'm sure He is interested in us as He has been in all previous universes where humans developed in different way than we did, with different outcomes.

We only know of this universe, so I don’t see much point in your now developing a history of other universes and other humans (how about other trilobites, dinosaurs and duckbilled platypuses, while you’re at it?). Perhaps you would just tell us why he would want to create sentient beings who would wonder how he did it.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: But you do think that formless energy already had omniscient intelligence and consciousness which came from nowhere.

DAVID: Something started the series of events that resulted in this universe to appear and us to appear. The beginning had to be able to think. Pure energy plasma cannot develop itself into a mind. Read Nagel!!

Now I’m really confused. “Pure energy plasma” can’t develop itself into a mind, but “pure energy” (your description of your God) is already a mind. Please explain.

TONY: The problem, I think, with DHW's explanation is that it is so damn broad that boredom and isolation seem to encompass everything. Oh, he did it for someone else, he was bored and lonely because doing something for someone else makes you feel good. Bleh

A travesty of what I wrote. You said that my hypothesis did not take love into account, and love was not self-serving. Both David and I pointed out that love can be self-serving. And so back we go: you agreed that initially your God might have wanted to end the boredom of his isolation. He did so by creating life (according to you, only “spawning” the spirit Jesus, who then “spawned” a gang of spirit labourers to help him build the universe). I suggest that the creation of material life would also help to relieve the boredom by enabling him to “grow” (your term) through new experiences. These would include love. Now please explain why you find this progression illogical.

DAVID: as if we are made to be in an image like Him, we must imagine Him to be limited to human thinking. Doesn't make sense to imagine Him so limited when he creates a universe that is fine-tuned for life and then developed a life form that could be evolved into conscious beings like Himself.

Why are you talking of “limits”? We are discussing why he would have created the universe and life forms that could be “conscious like Himself”. You have proposed that he wants a relationship, wants us to wonder, wants to prove himself to us. And then you complain because ending the boredom of isolation is “humanizing”.