philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 04, 2018, 14:45 (2031 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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?

Just consider: God may not need enjoyment. He may be filled with purpose and the joy of creation and nothing more. Just as likely as any other supposition about Him, since all we can do is analyze from his works, and He isn't giving any current expositions indirectly or in person. Opposite of interesting is uninteresting. He is obviously interested in what He creates.