philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 03, 2018, 11:36 (2243 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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

DHW: 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.

TONY: Because boredom and loneliness are self-serving. The primary target is "I" or "Me". "I am bored. I am lonely. I don't know what to do with myself."

You have contradicted yourself with the following:
TONY: You see, it is not simply the 'spectacle' of beauty that he created that is telling, but rather the ability for his creations to take pleasure in that spectacle. Would doing such a nice thing make him feel good? Yes, I think so. However, doing something for the feel good feelings of love can not happen prior to the target recipient of said love existing. Anything prior to that is, at best, satisfaction or pride, not love. Love needs a target.

If letting us take pleasure in the spectacle makes him feel good, it is self-serving. Satisfaction and pride are self-serving too. Human love came later in the process and provided another self-serving feel-good factor. Obviously none of this could happen until the flowers and the dinosaurs and the humans existed! Incidentally, I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God wanting to feel good, proud, or satisfied. It is you who seem to think that self-serving is somehow objectionable. I’m all in favour of it, providing it does no harm to anyone and especially if it leads to good. (Definitions come into play here, of course, and if your God exists, he will decide what’s “good”.In the meantime, I can only judge by human criteria, though I expect you, David and I would agree on most of those.)

TONY: I do not think that this mentality accurately reflects the mentality that designs flowers that smell sweet. Why make them smell sweet, they are not here for HIM to smell? Pheromones do the same thing at an unconsciously detectable level(i.e. they don't "smell good"), so 'to attract' some other critter is not a good explanation. Why give us the capacity to appreciate color, sounds, smells, tastes, or textures beyond the simple recognition of them? Why create multiple biomes? Surely it would have been easier to balance a world that was all dessert or ocean.

I’m afraid you are the one who will have to explain how and why a spirit creates and enjoys all these sensual pleasures of which it has no knowledge. You are the believer. But I don’t see how any of these questions disproves the logic of ongoing creation as an antidote to the boredom of isolation. The greater the variety, the greater the interest (see my response to David).