philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 04, 2018, 10:52 (2030 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As both Tony and I have told you boredom is a human emotion. You cannot leave his human level, which He has but much more.

dhw: The desire for a relationship, for enjoyment, to prove oneself is also human. So what? Only an idiot would deny that if he exists he must have much greater power and intelligence than we have, but the point here is that both Tony and you agree he DOES have human thoughts and logic.

DAVID: Of course we and God share a level of thought and logic that is at the human level. But it is obvious He has higher levels.

So the basis of your objection to my hypothesis is that you are allowed to attribute human thoughts to your God, as above, but I am not.

DAVID: 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: I'll stick with the undeniable logic that a designer is required. It is what made me a believer.

dhw: But please explain why you think formless energy plasma can’t develop intelligence and consciousness, whereas pure energy can.

DAVID: I'll stick to the point that consciousness must have existed with the first cause and cannot be invented out of nothing or immaterial energy.

Same non-logic: consciousness cannot be invented out of immaterial energy, but immaterial energy (your God) can simply have it.

DAVID: All we see did not come from pure nothing; first cause required.

dhw: Agreed. That does not explain how pure energy can be conscious whereas formless energy plasma can’t. And just to reiterate, first cause can be a mindless and eternal combination and recombination of energy and matter.

DAVID: And would have the ability to design nothing. In first cause a designer is required.

As above, either the conscious ability to design was simply there, with no source, or it evolved from eternal interaction between energy and matter. The one hypothesis is as unimaginable to me as the other.

DAVID: His thoughts are full of His purposes of creating a life bearing universe and the evolution of its inhabitants. Have you ever created a new play or novel out of boredom? I doubt it.

dhw: Once again: with your apparent insight into his mind, you had him observing with interest what we are doing, and how we approach him, and presumably he also watched with interest the spectacle of the billions of pre-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders coming and going. But now apparently his only purpose was to create the spectacle without any reason for doing so!

DAVID: Why did you skip over my question about your creations? You are a creator. Didn't you have reasons (?), and you full well know the reasons I have given you for his creations.

I didn’t skip over it. This was my answer:

dhw: As for me, if I were starving to death, I would not look for food out of boredom. But humans have also created a vast range of activities (that’s what makes us so interesting) which we can enjoy when we do not have to fight for our survival. I doubt if your God had to fight for survival, so what activities could he enjoy?

DAVID: The joy of creation. As a creator you should understand that point.

When I say we have created a vast range of activities which we can enjoy, I am including the joy of creation, which includes my own. And I am so glad that, instead of having your God gearing every form of life to the production of the brain of Homo sapiens, you now have him observing the whole spectacle with interest and enjoyment, which suggests to me that he may have created the whole spectacle so that he could watch it with interest and enjoyment. Wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps now you will answer the question I asked you in my last post: what is the opposite of interesting?