Is the philosophy of science dead? (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, May 15, 2015, 14:00 (3263 days ago)
Physicists think so, philosophers don't. A good but long review article of the debate:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20150513-Later that year Krauss had a friendly discussion with philosopher Julian Baggini in The Observer, an online magazine from The Guardian. Although showing great respect for science and agreeing with Krauss and most other physicists and cosmologists that there isn't “more stuff in the universe than the stuff of physical science,” Baggini complained that Krauss seems to share “some of science's imperialist ambitions.” Baggini voices the common opinion that “there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.”-Krauss does not see it quite that way. Rather he distinguishes between “questions that are answerable and those that are not,” and the answerable ones mostly fall into the “domain of empirical knowledge, aka science.” As for moral questions, Krauss claims that they only be answered by “reason...based on empirical evidence.” Baggini cannot see how any “factual discovery could ever settle a question of right and wrong.”-Nevertheless, Krauss expresses sympathy with Baggini's position, saying, “I do think philosophical discussion can inform decision-making in many important ways—by allowing reflections on facts, but that ultimately the only source of facts is via empirical exploration.”-**** We are not sure how model-dependent realism differs from instrumentalism. In both cases physicists concern themselves only with observations and, although they do not deny that they are the consequence of some ultimate reality, they do not insist that the models describing those observations correspond exactly to that reality. In any case, Hawking and Mlodinow are acting as philosophers—epistemologists at the minimum—by discussing what we can know about ultimate reality, even if their answer is “nothing.”-All of the prominent critics of philosophy whose views we have discussed think very deeply about the source of human knowledge. That is, they are all epistemologists. The best they can say is they know more about science than (most) professional philosophers and rely on observation and experiment rather than pure thought—not that they aren't philosophizing. Certainly, then, philosophy is not dead. That designation is more aptly applied to pure-thought variants like those that comprise cosmological metaphysics.-To me it seems reasonable to debate if one can get something from nothing.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Friday, September 09, 2016, 00:21 (2780 days ago) @ David Turell
An interesting discussion with a leading philosopher of science relating to our recent Higgs discussion: - http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/-why-science-should-stay-clear-of-metaphysics - "In philosophical terms, “anti-realists” or “empiricists” understand science as investigating the properties of observable objects via experiments. Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world, often designing mathematical explanations that cannot (yet) be tested. Isaac Newton was a realist, as are string theorists. - *** - "As the inventor of “constructive empiricism,” van Fraassen is widely acknowledged by his peers as one of the greatest living philosophers. (He calls himself “a philosopher's philosopher.”) Van Fraassen does not write for the philosophically uninitiated, but his books are in no danger of going out of print. - "In his 2008 book, Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective, van Fraassen argued that experimental data is nothing more nor less than a representation of an observable fragment of a fundamentally unobservable universe. He argued that while it is scientifically acceptable to believe that data represents a physical state of an “it,” that does not necessarily mean “it” exists. - "As the ineluctably empiricist philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, quipped, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” And yet many scientists speak of unobservables as if they are embedded in a map of reality that can be discovered. - *** - "Science is walled off from metaphysics in van Fraassen's brand of empiricism by the demand that experimental data must correlate with at least part of the structure of a theoretical model. His bedrock notion of “empirical adequacy” stops at that, forbidding itself to speculate about the (metaphysical) nature of unobserved phenomena. - "Fortunately, constructive empiricism allows science to proceed without providing an ontological map of the whole shebang. By way of example, there is evidence for what goes on inside a proton, but that does not allow us to assume the existence of quarks. Tons of data from linear accelerators fit into an empirically adequate model of what quarks might be. But to claim that quarks exist is a metaphysical, not a scientific statement. - *** - "My main point is that it is practically impossible to describe the chaos of what actually happens in the world. We can construct useful theories or models that are empirically adequate—that tell us something, for instance, about the behavior of what we call electrons, without having to say what an electron is. Parts of a theoretical model can be judged as true or false, based upon the reproducibility of the data. But, to be useful, to be empirically adequate, the data does not have to fit into some overarching theory about the organization of the world. - *** - "It is a matter of fact whether or not electrons are real. The physical world is certainly real; it objectively exists, even though we cannot glimpse more than a tiny part of it. It is the role of science to make predictive theories about phenomena which we can observe, not what we cannot observe. We will never see the particle itself, only its representations, its images, but we strive to collect a body of data that enables a theory to predict what objects do. - *** - "Realism is also a stance, but, counter the empiricist, a realist is not necessarily constrained by the facts revealed by data. The role of science is not to interpret or explain a greater reality, but to create theories that are useful in making predictions about the observable world. The sole criterion of scientific success is empirical success. Theories survive by latching onto regularities in nature. - *** - "The constructive empiricist says that experimental results and measurement results are the only “real” phenomena that a scientist can witness. The criterion of success is fitting the experimental data into theoretical models that predict the data itself. - "By way of example, fitting data about Higgs bosons as imaged by the Large Hadron Collider to the predictions of the Standard Model does not mean the Standard Model is a true theory, just that the Higgs data corresponds to a piece of the theory which was not previously found to be empirically adequate. (my bold) - "The realist disagrees, “No! Empirical adequacy does not go far enough. The criterion of scientific success is that a theory has to be entirely true.” - *** - "To be clear, scientists tend to be pragmatists, not philosophers. The takeaway is that if the data conforms to a part of a theoretical scheme that strives to explain the structure of a chair or of the universe, that model can be used as a basis for designing more experiments. If the data does not fit the predictions of the model, then the theory is not useful for science, but fine for metaphysics, if that is what you want to do." - Comment: Note the bold about the Higgs. I am an empiricist. I fully understand that a quark is known by its manifestations, not as a quark itself. Multiverse theory is philosophic foolishness.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: An interesting discussion with a leading philosopher of science relating to our recent Higgs discussion: - http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/-why-science-should-stay-clear-of-metaphysics - QUOTE: "In philosophical terms, “anti-realists” or “empiricists” understand science as investigating the properties of observable objects via experiments. Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world, often designing mathematical explanations that cannot (yet) be tested. Isaac Newton was a realist, as are string theorists.” David's comment: Note the bold about the Higgs. I am an empiricist. I fully understand that a quark is known by its manifestations, not as a quark itself. Multiverse theory is philosophic foolishness. - First of all, I find the term “realist” totally misleading. There is nothing “realistic” about untestable theories. Why not contrast “empiricists” with “theorists”? Secondly, how can you possibly be an empiricist when you constantly attribute every aspect of the observable and unobservable world to a speculative and untestable hypothesis you call God? If “multiverse theory” is philosophic foolishness, then so is God - but I disagree with you on both counts. I would also add the hypothesis that there is one universe which has existed for ever, transforming energy and matter in a never-ending process. Pure speculation. Theory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism. - As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Friday, September 09, 2016, 19:55 (2779 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, September 09, 2016, 20:08
David's comment: Note the bold about the Higgs. I am an empiricist. I fully understand that a quark is known by its manifestations, not as a quark itself. Multiverse theory is philosophic foolishness. > > dhw: First of all, I find the term “realist” totally misleading. There is nothing “realistic” about untestable theories. Why not contrast “empiricists” with “theorists”? -I'm simply presenting a famous philosopher. Those are his preferred terms.-As for quantum theory look at this description:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130900-600-lessons-in-reality-from-particles-that-dont-exist/-"WHEN you hear the word “particle”, what image floats into your mind? Chances are you're thinking small, and then some - like the tiniest billiard ball imaginable. Indivisible chunks of matter pinging off each other in the vast expanses of space, or jostling for position in a crowded chunk of stuff.-"Chances are, too, you're nowhere near the vision of particles painted by our best picture of how they work, quantum theory. This says that despite making up stuff that definitely has a size - ourselves, the paper or screen you're reading this on - particles occupy a point in space precisely zero metres across.-"While you're chewing that one over, you might consider how quantum theory also allows these size-zero particles to occupy multiple places at once, or be “entangled” so the state of one becomes inextricably bound up with the state of another. But even that doesn't prepare you for the latest assault on any common-sense conception of a particle that physicists have been preparing.-"An alternative breed of shape-shifting particles can be split up, change their mass, and be combined with other stuff to make more than the sum of the parts. These particles don't seem to exist in any way that makes sense, and yet we are increasingly bending them to our will. The results are reshaping technology, from superconductors to quantum computers — and helping us probe deeper into the fabric of reality than ever before."-Comment: the philosopher is simply reminding us how much we really don't understand but we talk about it as if we do. Watch the video!-***-> As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.-I'm glad you finally recognize it.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
David's comment: Note the bold about the Higgs. I am an empiricist. I fully understand that a quark is known by its manifestations, not as a quark itself. Multiverse theory is philosophic foolishness. dhw: First of all, I find the term “realist” totally misleading. There is nothing “realistic” about untestable theories. Why not contrast “empiricists” with “theorists”? DAVID: I'm simply presenting a famous philosopher. Those are his preferred terms.-And I am simply saying why I find the famous philosopher's use of “realist” misleading.-Dhw: Secondly, how can you possibly be an empiricist when you constantly attribute every aspect of the observable and unobservable world to a speculative and untestable hypothesis you call God? If “multiverse theory” is philosophic foolishness, then so is God - but I disagree with you on both counts. I would also add the hypothesis that there is one universe which has existed for ever, transforming energy and matter in a never-ending process. Pure speculation. Theory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism.-For some reason, you have ignored this completely and saltated to an article about particles.-Dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.-DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it.-That's strange. When I wrote: “We have agreed that the Higgs completed a segment of a pattern”, you replied “No we haven't.” And when I wrote: “...it may be that the Standard Model is woefully amiss”, you wrote: “It is not woefully amiss” and then reproduced quotes saying “the standard model must break down somewhere”, and the discovery of the Higgs “hints at the sickness within the standard model” - as if somehow they supported you instead of me! I then asked: “Why all this vehement opposition to statements of mine which you then proceed to echo?” But I'm glad to finally recognize that you have finally recognized that your disagreement was in fact an agreement.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Saturday, September 10, 2016, 16:56 (2779 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, September 10, 2016, 17:06
> dhw: And I am simply saying why I find the famous philosopher's use of “realist” misleading.-All fields have their jargon. > > Dhw: [iTheory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism.[/i] > > For some reason, you have ignored this completely and saltated to an article about particles.-I leap-frogged to thinking about his comments on quantum theory. He is right on. And his comments about empiricism/realism are very pertinent considering how little we understand about the underpinning of quantum theory.-From the article: "Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world" I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be. > > Dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern. > > DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it. > > dhw: That's strange.....“Why all this vehement opposition to statements of mine which you then proceed to echo?” But I'm glad to finally recognize that you have finally recognized that your disagreement was in fact an agreement.-You started the discussion with a response to my viewing the SM as a pattern which suggested a mind behind it by trying to point out all the supposed deficiencies, all of which are/were outside the accepted pattern.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
Dhw: And I am simply saying why I find the famous philosopher's use of “realist” misleading. DAVID: All fields have their jargon.-Yes indeed. That's why some dictatorships are called democratic republics.-Dhw: …how can you possibly be an empiricist when you constantly attribute every aspect of the observable and unobservable world to a speculative and untestable hypothesis you call God? If “multiverse theory” is philosophic foolishness, then so is God - but I disagree with you on both counts. I would also add the hypothesis that there is one universe which has existed for ever, transforming energy and matter in a never-ending process. Pure speculation. Theory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism.-DAVID: From the article: "Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world" I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be.-Please tell us what experiments can test whether an eternal conscious mind created billions of solar systems in order to produce life on Earth, preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird's nest, and is hiding behind a quantum wall. -Dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern. DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it. dhw: That's strange.....“Why all this vehement opposition to statements of mine which you then proceed to echo?” But I'm glad to finally recognize that you have finally recognized that your disagreement was in fact an agreement.-DAVID: You started the discussion with a response to my viewing the SM as a pattern which suggested a mind behind it by trying to point out all the supposed deficiencies, all of which are/were outside the accepted pattern.-We have finally agreed that the Higgs completes a segment of a pattern, and having bolded the quotes supporting the viewpoint that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective, you have clearly recognized that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective! I have certainly not recognized your claim that the now suspect SM strongly suggests a planning mind. But whatever the complete pattern turns out to be, I'm sure you will continue to see it as strongly suggesting a planning mind, and I will continue to offer odds of 50/50!
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Sunday, September 11, 2016, 15:21 (2778 days ago) @ dhw
David: I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be.[/i] > > dhw: Please tell us what experiments can test whether an eternal conscious mind created billions of solar systems in order to produce life on Earth, preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird's nest, and is hiding behind a quantum wall. -I've said I've reached a metaphysical endpoint from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. > > Dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.-> DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it. > > dhw: We have finally agreed that the Higgs completes a segment of a pattern, and having bolded the quotes supporting the viewpoint that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective, you have clearly recognized that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective! -Again you misinterpret. The SM does contain currently some questionable problems, but my point is that each time we create an experiment in atom busting we have always found an answer that fits the overall pattern and solves the discrepancy, the Higgs as the latest of those steps. If we ever find a total misfit then your point will be correct. But until now each discovery fits the human conception of how it is all put together in this limited understanding of the overall picture, awaiting discovery, if possible.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be. dhw: Please tell us what experiments can test whether an eternal conscious mind created billions of solar systems in order to produce life on Earth, preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird's nest, and is hiding behind a quantum wall. DAVID: I've said I've reached a metaphysical endpoint from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. -Yes you have, but you also said above that you used experimental results, which apparently is what you would have to do to call yourself an empiricist. In my ignorance, I remain totally unaware of any experiments that provide evidence for the three conclusions I have listed above. dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it. dhw: We have finally agreed that the Higgs completes a segment of a pattern, and having bolded the quotes supporting the viewpoint that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective, you have clearly recognized that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective! -DAVID: Again you misinterpret. The SM does contain currently some questionable problems, but my point is that each time we create an experiment in atom busting we have always found an answer that fits the overall pattern and solves the discrepancy, the Higgs as the latest of those steps. If we ever find a total misfit then your point will be correct. But until now each discovery fits the human conception of how it is all put together in this limited understanding of the overall picture, awaiting discovery, if possible.-And it is the limited understanding of the overall picture, awaiting discovery, if possible, that enables us to say - as all the commentators have said - that the SM may be defective or, even stronger in two of the quotes you yourself gave to us: "Physicists know that the standard model must break down somewhere.” "Even the crowning achievement of the LHC, the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 hints at the sickness within the standard model." (David's bold)-But this is getting us nowhere. Your point was that the current pattern strongly suggests a mind, and my point was that no matter what pattern physicists come up with, you will still think it suggests a mind - even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Monday, September 12, 2016, 18:12 (2776 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: But this is getting us nowhere. Your point was that the current pattern strongly suggests a mind, and my point was that no matter what pattern physicists come up with, you will still think it suggests a mind - even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather.- Stop wiggling. The current herd of particles had enough understanding to predict the Higgs. You can't get around that fact. Yes some minor points don't fit, but every time in the past, misunderstood areas have been clarified by new discoveries. I fully expect that to be the case here. What we don't really know is outside the energies of the Higgs.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
dhw: But this is getting us nowhere. Your point was that the current pattern strongly suggests a mind, and my point was that no matter what pattern physicists come up with, you will still think it suggests a mind - even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather.-DAVID: Stop wiggling. The current herd of particles had enough understanding to predict the Higgs. You can't get around that fact. Yes some minor points don't fit, but every time in the past, misunderstood areas have been clarified by new discoveries. I fully expect that to be the case here. What we don't really know is outside the energies of the Higgs.-I have already agreed that this SEGMENT (your word) of the overall pattern has been proved. “Minor points” or “misunderstood areas” include approx. 95% (the figure seems to vary from commentator to commentator) of the universe's matter and energy, plus gravity. New discoveries may force us to abandon the standard model in favour of a new overall pattern. I don't have a clue about these things. I can only go by what the experts tell us, and you have magnanimously confirmed all of this with a series of quotes:-"Physicists know that the standard model must break down somewhere.” -"Even the crowning achievement of the LHC, the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, hints at the sickness within the standard model." -“Alternatively, they [WIMPS] may not exist, which would mean that something is woefully amiss in the underpinnings of how we try to make sense of the universe[/b].” -“Whatever dark matter is, it is not accounted for in the Standard Model of particle physics…” -Our starting point was your claim that the current pattern strongly suggested a planning mind. My response is at the top of this post. What are we arguing about?
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 01:59 (2775 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have already agreed that this SEGMENT (your word) of the overall pattern has been proved. - Fine. I agree. If so why do you state this about it: - "even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather". Stated in the beginning of this reply of yours. By putting it in juxtaposition perhaps you will realize your comments about this are all over the place.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
dhw: I have already agreed that this SEGMENT (your word) of the overall pattern has been proved. - DAVID: Fine. I agree. If so why do you state this about it: "even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather". Stated in the beginning of this reply of yours. By putting it in juxtaposition perhaps you will realize your comments about this are all over the place. - You are confused. You quoted this in your post of 12 September at 18.12, so you could allege that I was “wiggling”. I reproduced it together with your wiggly reply in order to supply the context for my own reply. The original quote (which had ended my post of 12.9 at 12.21), was: dhw: But this is getting us nowhere. Your point was that the current pattern strongly suggests a mind, and my point was that no matter what pattern physicists come up with, you will still think it suggests a mind - even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather. - “The pattern” refers to the unknown overall pattern, not the segment. The weather reference was to my post under “Any explanation for dark matter?” I wrote: “It may even be that the complete pattern of the universe is as changeable as that of the weather, with both predictable and unpredictable elements.” Your reply, in block capitals, was “YES!” - Once again, I propose we put an end to this particular discussion.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 15:55 (2775 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: “The pattern” refers to the unknown overall pattern, not the segment. The weather reference was to my post under “Any explanation for dark matter?” I wrote: “It may even be that the complete pattern of the universe is as changeable as that of the weather, with both predictable and unpredictable elements.” Your reply, in block capitals, was “YES!” > > Once again, I propose we put an end to this particular discussion. - With your clarification, agreed
philosophy of science: facts and truth
by David Turell , Saturday, December 24, 2016, 19:07 (2673 days ago) @ David Turell
A discussion of the important issue of exactly what scientific discoveries tell us. Are they fact and truth or not?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-...
"I’m a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and “the truth” some time last year. I wrote a whole science book, The Memory Illusion, almost never mentioning the terms fact and truth. Why? Because much like Santa Claus and unicorns, facts don’t actually exist. At least not in the way we commonly think of them.
"We think of a fact as an irrefutable truth. According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
"Well, let me tell you a secret about science; scientists don’t prove anything. What we do is collect evidence that supports or does not support our predictions. Sometimes we do things over and over again, in meaningfully different ways, and we get the same results, and then we call these findings facts. And, when we have lots and lots of replications and variations that all say the same thing, then we talk about theories or laws. Like evolution. Or gravity. But at no point have we proved anything.
"Don’t get me wrong. The scientific method is totally awesome. It is unparalleled in its ability to get answers that can help us extend life, optimize output, and understand our own brains.
"Scientists slowly break down the illusions created by our biased human perception, revealing what the universe actually looks like. In an incremental progress, each study adds a tiny bit of insight to our understanding.
"But while the magic of science should make our eyes twinkle with excitement, we can still argue that the findings from every scientific experiment ever conducted are wrong, almost by necessity. They are just a bit more right (hopefully) than preceding studies.
"That’s the beauty of science. It’s inherently self-critical and self-correcting. The status quo is never good enough. Scientists want to know more, always. And, lucky for them, there is always more to know.
***
"Our understanding can always be improved upon. Even if it is wrong, it doesn’t make a preceding insight bad, it is often the necessary intermediary step to get our insight to where it is today.
"So, it’s ok that society is post-fact. Facts are so last century.
But let’s make it our job as a society to encourage each other to find replicable and falsifiable evidence to support our views, and to logically argue our positions. In the process, please stop saying “because, science” to justify your argument, and using “FACT” as a preface to your statements. These are just the grown-up versions of “because I said so.” We need to remind each other to stay on our toes and to actually backup our claims.
"Knowledge is like Schrödinger’s cat. Simultaneously reality and delusion. Truth and lie. The role of scientists is to slowly break into the box, listen to it, study it, so maybe, one day, we’ll find out whether our insights are dead or alive."
Comment: The lesson is we have lots to learn and nothing we know or believe is locked in cement. Logical observations of natural phenomena are like the fellow who has both feet implanted in midair. No basis for using that kind of logic when looking at the complexity of our reality. Logic about how our reality is designed must yield to scientific study to find the real underlying logic in that design.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 02, 2018, 22:08 (2056 days ago) @ David Turell
Can pure science explain everything. Definitely no:
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/eric-holloway-id-as-a-bridge-between-francis-bac...
"Demanding results, Bacon recommends carefully dissecting nature’s mysteries to heal the world’s suffering, instead of wondering about the meaning of it all. And thus was born the modern scientific age, where the perception of meaning is only a biased illusion and truth must be empirically measurable.
"Today, Bacon’s view is the dominant view, so much so that we take it for granted. Science and technology have led to a revolution in health, wealth and material happiness throughout the world. In the space of a few centuries it has lifted the majority of the earth’s booming population out of poverty. The rigorous vision of Bacon, spoken with the precision of math, has given us the gift of the gods, but has also resulted in unprecedented death and destruction, horrific human experimentation, mass enslavement, cultural disintegration, and in general left us with a sense that we have lost something of great value that we cannot find again. The core reason for the aimlessness is because the building blocks of science are inert. They are like Legos in a box. You cannot shake the box of Legos and expect a spaceship to fall out. In the same way, mathematical proof and physical evidence cannot explain their own reason for being. Science cannot explain meaning. At the same time, the very inability of science to speak for itself says something of interest.
"In medieval language this missing meaning is called function. Function cannot emerge from atoms in motion. It cannot emerge from shaking the Lego box. This claim can be proven mathematically. In information theory, function is a kind of mutual information. Mutual information is subject to the law of information non-increase, which means mutual information and thus function cannot be created by natural processes. Thus, without an organizing force, matter is functionless and void, and there is no meaning.
***
"Fortunately, humans seem to be pretty good at identifying function without huge amounts of empirical justification, unless they are university trained. The empirical detection of function is a new pair of glasses that corrects Bacon’s vision, and helps us again follow along the path that winds back through the medieval monasteries of Thomas Aquinas, with the mathematical and empirical rigor of science.
"But, after hearing this Bacon will say, “it all sounds quite nice, but how is it useful? Function doesn’t feed children or cure cancer.” The answer to Bacon’s question is illustrated with the story of the book at the beginning. If we approach the natural world as if it were arbitrarily put together, then we miss many clues that can help us to understand and use it better.
"We are seeing the scientific importance of empirically detecting function now with the ENCODE project. Previously, scientists believed that since the human genome was produced by evolution, most of it would be random and functionless. However, the ENCODE project has shown the majority of the human genome is functional. Now that we understand the genome is mostly functional, we will be better able to decode how it works and programs our body. So, contrary to Bacon, being able to detect function in the human genome can help us improve our lives.
"This raises the further question: how would science change if we broaden our detection of function to the rest of the world? Since things work better if they follow their function, does this mean there is a proper order for human flourishing, as the medievals believed? Furthermore, what does science have to say about the creators of function, such as humans? Since matter cannot create function, function creators cannot be reduced to matter. And being more than matter, human beings must be more valuable than any material good. While it is true we cannot go from is to ought, intelligent design does provide a scientific basis for human ontological and pragmatic worth, as well as justify a natural law that must be followed in order for humanity to prosper. So, through the lens of intelligent design, science can indeed talk about the metaphysical realm of value and morals and explain the medieval worldview of function in the empirical language of modern science.
Comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.
philosophy of science: humans and quantum mechanics
by David Turell , Monday, September 03, 2018, 00:48 (2056 days ago) @ David Turell
Steven Weinberg and the confusion about human consciousness and quantum physics:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
"The instrumentalist approach is a descendant of the Copenhagen interpretation, but instead of imagining a boundary beyond which reality is not described by quantum mechanics, it rejects quantum mechanics altogether as a description of reality. There is still a wave function, but it is not real like a particle or a field. Instead it is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.
"It seems to me that the trouble with this approach is not only that it gives up on an ancient aim of science: to say what is really going on out there. It is a surrender of a particularly unfortunate kind. In the instrumentalist approach, we have to assume, as fundamental laws of nature, the rules (such as the Born rule I mentioned earlier) for using the wave function to calculate the probabilities of various results when humans make measurements. Thus humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
"Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal, but I think not yet. (my bold)
Comment: Although Weinberg says 'not yet' he offers no solution later in the article, but some half-hearted suggestions.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
QUOTE: Since things work better if they follow their function, does this mean there is a proper order for human flourishing, as the medievals believe?
I say no. But there are certain rules which would be helpful to humanity in general, like ‘do as you would be done by’.
QUOTE: Furthermore, what does science have to say about the creators of function, such as humans? Since matter cannot create function, function creators cannot be reduced to matter.
What does “create function” mean? We humans are able to make materials function in a certain way, and we are able to analyse function in material things we have not created. We assume that matter cannot do its own analysing, but that does not mean matter doesn’t function independently of the human mind or of any other mind! There is a functioning balance between our planet and the rest of our solar system, and an atheist has as much right to believe that matter follows natural laws which do not require a creator as a theist has to believe in a mind that defies all scientific analysis.
QUOTE: And being more than matter, human beings must be more valuable than any material good.
More valuable to whom? Humans! This is silly.
QUOTE: While it is true we cannot go from is to ought, intelligent design does provide a scientific basis for human ontological and pragmatic worth, as well as justify a natural law that must be followed in order for humanity to prosper.
It doesn’t and it doesn’t, unless you believe in a God who sets the universal criterion for “worth”, and says “humans are more valuable than x,y,z”. Science provides a basis for intelligent design, but intelligent design does not provide a basis for human arrogance. What does “prosper” mean? Get rich, destroy anything and everything that stands in the way of personal profit? There are different ways of “prospering”, and we know of no laws beyond those we make for ourselves.
QUOTE: So, through the lens of intelligent design, science can indeed talk about the metaphysical realm of value and morals and explain the medieval worldview of function in the empirical language of modern science.
Value and morals are not the province of science, and woolly use of the word “function” provides no scientific basis for any scale of values or social codes.
DAVID’s comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.
The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 03, 2018, 15:03 (2056 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: Furthermore, what does science have to say about the creators of function, such as humans? Since matter cannot create function, function creators cannot be reduced to matter.
dhw: What does “create function” mean? We humans are able to make materials function in a certain way, and we are able to analyse function in material things we have not created. We assume that matter cannot do its own analysing, but that does not mean matter doesn’t function independently of the human mind or of any other mind! There is a functioning balance between our planet and the rest of our solar system, and an atheist has as much right to believe that matter follows natural laws which do not require a creator as a theist has to believe in a mind that defies all scientific analysis.
The article discusses function and meaning from a medieval philosophic point of view:
"The core reason for the aimlessness is because the building blocks of science are inert. They are like Legos in a box. You cannot shake the box of Legos and expect a spaceship to fall out. In the same way, mathematical proof and physical evidence cannot explain their own reason for being. Science cannot explain meaning. At the same time, the very inability of science to speak for itself says something of interest.
"In medieval language this missing meaning is called function. Function cannot emerge from atoms in motion. It cannot emerge from shaking the Lego box. This claim can be proven mathematically. In information theory, function is a kind of mutual information. Mutual information is subject to the law of information non-increase, which means mutual information and thus function cannot be created by natural processes. Thus, without an organizing force, matter is functionless and void, and there is no meaning."
QUOTE: While it is true we cannot go from is to ought, intelligent design does provide a scientific basis for human ontological and pragmatic worth, as well as justify a natural law that must be followed in order for humanity to prosper.
dhw: It doesn’t and it doesn’t, unless you believe in a God who sets the universal criterion for “worth”, and says “humans are more valuable than x,y,z”. Science provides a basis for intelligent design, but intelligent design does not provide a basis for human arrogance. What does “prosper” mean? Get rich, destroy anything and everything that stands in the way of personal profit? There are different ways of “prospering”, and we know of no laws beyond those we make for ourselves.
Science sees laws laws of nature but does not recognize a source. Science finds the 'laws', not create them, and math principals that nature presents.
QUOTE: So, through the lens of intelligent design, science can indeed talk about the metaphysical realm of value and morals and explain the medieval worldview of function in the empirical language of modern science.dhw: Value and morals are not the province of science, and woolly use of the word “function” provides no scientific basis for any scale of values or social codes.
DAVID’s comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.
dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: The article discusses function and meaning from a medieval philosophic point of view:
I don’t care what point of view it’s from. I like to see a bit of coherence in an argument, and I don’t find it here!
QUOTE: "The core reason for the aimlessness is because the building blocks of science are inert. They are like Legos in a box. You cannot shake the box of Legos and expect a spaceship to fall out. In the same way, mathematical proof and physical evidence cannot explain their own reason for being. Science cannot explain meaning. At the same time, the very inability of science to speak for itself says something of interest.
Of course science can’t explain meaning. That is the province of philosophy, and there is no scientific or philosophical basis for the assumption that black holes and colliding solar systems and living forms extant and extinct have any “meaning” whatsoever. It is absurd to say that science can’t speak for itself when it is constantly informing us of how it fulfils or tries to fulfil its self-imposed purpose of explaining how things function. That is an end in itself.
QUOTE: "In medieval language this missing meaning is called function. Function cannot emerge from atoms in motion. It cannot emerge from shaking the Lego box. This claim can be proven mathematically. In information theory, function is a kind of mutual information. Mutual information is subject to the law of information non-increase, which means mutual information and thus function cannot be created by natural processes. Thus, without an organizing force, matter is functionless and void, and there is no meaning."
What sort of reasoning is this? if matter produces systems that FUNCTION (e.g. our solar system), it is just as feasible to claim that the organizing force is natural laws as it is to say that there is an unknown sourceless mastermind which organizes matter. (There may be. I am an agnostic.) But obviously if there is no God, there is no meaning. That doesn’t mean there must be a God and there must be a meaning!
Let’s ignore all the business about values/worth and human prosperity, and skip to David’s comments, which lead to a similar conclusion.
DAVID’s comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.
dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
DAVID: Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 04, 2018, 14:20 (2055 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The article discusses function and meaning from a medieval philosophic point of view:
dhw: I don’t care what point of view it’s from. I like to see a bit of coherence in an argument, and I don’t find it here!
QUOTE: "The core reason for the aimlessness is because the building blocks of science are inert. They are like Legos in a box. You cannot shake the box of Legos and expect a spaceship to fall out. In the same way, mathematical proof and physical evidence cannot explain their own reason for being. Science cannot explain meaning. At the same time, the very inability of science to speak for itself says something of interest.
dhw: Of course science can’t explain meaning. That is the province of philosophy, and there is no scientific or philosophical basis for the assumption that black holes and colliding solar systems and living forms extant and extinct have any “meaning” whatsoever. It is absurd to say that science can’t speak for itself when it is constantly informing us of how it fulfils or tries to fulfil its self-imposed purpose of explaining how things function. That is an end in itself.
QUOTE: "In medieval language this missing meaning is called function. Function cannot emerge from atoms in motion. It cannot emerge from shaking the Lego box. This claim can be proven mathematically. In information theory, function is a kind of mutual information. Mutual information is subject to the law of information non-increase, which means mutual information and thus function cannot be created by natural processes. Thus, without an organizing force, matter is functionless and void, and there is no meaning."
dhw: What sort of reasoning is this? if matter produces systems that FUNCTION (e.g. our solar system), it is just as feasible to claim that the organizing force is natural laws as it is to say that there is an unknown sourceless mastermind which organizes matter. (There may be. I am an agnostic.) But obviously if there is no God, there is no meaning. That doesn’t mean there must be a God and there must be a meaning!
And the author and I might ask who created the natural laws? Not chance.
dhw: Let’s ignore all the business about values/worth and human prosperity, and skip to David’s comments, which lead to a similar conclusion.DAVID’s comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.
dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
The information is not just here for analysis. The information runs the universe and life and must have a source..
DAVID: Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
Yesterday’s posts should have been my last before leaving, but of course I couldn’t resist seeing if you had replied, and now of course I can’t resist replying!
dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
DAVID: The information is not just here for analysis. The information runs the universe and life and must have a source.
Either your God, or natural laws. See below.
DAVID: Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 05, 2018, 14:45 (2054 days ago) @ dhw
Yesterday’s posts should have been my last before leaving, but of course I couldn’t resist seeing if you had replied, and now of course I can’t resist replying!
dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.
DAVID: The information is not just here for analysis. The information runs the universe and life and must have a source.
Either your God, or natural laws. See below.
DAVID: Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
One form of the magic must exist.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
DAVID: One form of the magic must exist.
Yes indeed. That is the agnostic’s dilemma.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 10, 2018, 16:59 (2049 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
DAVID: One form of the magic must exist.
DHW: Yes indeed. That is the agnostic’s dilemma.
I find it far less difficult to believe in the concept of a singular entity that, whether gradually or spontaneously, developed sentience and then spent eons growing before expanding outwards far less difficult to believe in than an enormously complex and harmonious set of individual laws that interact with each other all spontaneously coming into existence with no precursor.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 10, 2018, 21:36 (2048 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.
dhw: I shan’t oppose that argument, except to say it is equally suggestive that materials follow natural laws of self-organization, and faith in the laws of nature is no less reasonable or unreasonable than faith in an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mastermind.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
DAVID: One form of the magic must exist.
DHW: Yes indeed. That is the agnostic’s dilemma.
Tony: I find it far less difficult to believe in the concept of a singular entity that, whether gradually or spontaneously, developed sentience and then spent eons growing before expanding outwards far less difficult to believe in than an enormously complex and harmonious set of individual laws that interact with each other all spontaneously coming into existence with no precursor.
I can only agree with your logic.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
I have transferred the “pointy eggs” arguments to this thread, which is more appropriate.
DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
DAVID: One form of the magic must exist.
dhw: Yes indeed. That is the agnostic’s dilemma.
TONY: I find it far less difficult to believe in the concept of a singular entity that, whether gradually or spontaneously, developed sentience and then spent eons growing before expanding outwards far less difficult to believe in than an enormously complex and harmonious set of individual laws that interact with each other all spontaneously coming into existence with no precursor.
Your proposal has similarities to an alternative which I’ll discuss below. However, I’m reluctant to ignore the post you’re responding to, so I’ll repeat it as a point of reference (though Jesus’s “fullness” seems to have got lost).
dhw: I have offered a theistic purpose (God’s wish to relieve his own boredom by creating an ever changing spectacle) in the paragraph with which I have opened this post. I’d be surprised if you agreed with it, but if you don’t, it would be interesting to know why, and it would be interesting to know how your God’s hoped-for attainment of Jesus’s "fullness" explains the billions of solar systems and the billions of life forms and natural wonders extant and extinct.
TONY: 1: There is/was/will ever be, energy.
2: This energy, however it happened, became self-aware and grew in organization (lived)
This fits in with a form of panpsychism I’ve proposed as an alternative to a God and to chance: that the first cause is energy forever transforming itself into matter and, “however it happened” (the gap in all our hypotheses), becoming – not just being – aware. This awareness comes about through ever changing combinations of matter, i.e it is not the universal energy that becomes conscious, but the energy within the individual materials. It is these that “grew in organization”. No single conscious entity, but billions that have learned to cooperate in systems ranging from solar to bacterial (though all must eventually end).
TONY: 3: As the organization (self-awareness) grew, it realized that growth and organization (life/fullness/self-actualization) is a purpose in and of itself.
4: It grew in its own fullness.
5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)
This is too nebulous for me. What does growing in “fullness” mean? Full of what? Do you mean it’s learning, having new experiences, or feelings? Why “could not grow” as opposed to “did not want to”? If isolation makes it need more experiences, we are coming close to relief of boredom, aren’t we? Anyway, to end its isolation it invents the first life forms, which we agreed were single cells.
TONY: 7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.
This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.
TONY: 8: It realized that, like it, its spawn would need to 'reproduce' to achieve fullness.
9: It realized that this process would have to continue infinitely, each new awareness growing and spreading.
I would describe this as evolution: cellular awareness spread, formed new combinations, and thus achieved the “fullness” of the higgledy-piggledy bush of life’s history as we know it. I'll rely on you to pinpoint differences, if any, between these hypotheses.
TONY: 10: Pondering the situation, it decided on a course of action that would accomplish both tasks, creating life/organization/self-awareness in a system that could continuously expand and grow infinitely(for all intents and purposes)
11: It worked through its offspring, allowing its offspring to grow along one trajectory, while it grew along another, possibly with the intent that at some point its offspring would start its own cycle while it continued to grow in new directions.
If there’s a single God, why couldn't he allow his creations to follow more than one “trajectory”? This is the basis of my theistic evolutionary hypothesis: your God invents the original mechanism, and allows organisms to use it autonomously – as opposed to preprogramming and/or dabbling (though the latter remains an option).
TONY: In this line of thinking, God is not only the progenitor, but also always at the head of the growth curve, always more advanced, always in the lead. The offspring, being aware of this, always follows the direction of its progenitor.
The single entity hypothesis is one possible progenitor, and multiple entities are another, as in the panpsychist hypothesis. But both can explain the above higgledy-piggledy bush, as you say “(life/fullness/self-actualization) is a purpose in and of itself”. Indeed it is the only purpose you have offered us here. Clearly, then, life as a purpose in and of itself - though humans have individual purposes - would apply to a godless world (= the chance and the panpsychist hypotheses), but you put the single conscious entity in charge, so with regard to purpose I’ll go back to my comment on points 3-6.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 21:57 (2047 days ago) @ dhw
Ok, before I answer all of these, I am NOT talking about cells, nor stating that atoms are self-aware. Please don't misrepresent my argument as agreeing with either of those statements.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: OK, before I answer all of these, I am NOT talking about cells, nor stating that atoms are self-aware. Please don't misrepresent my argument as agreeing with either of those statements.
Before you answer, let me emphasize that I am not deliberately misrepresenting your arguments. I found this whole section nebulous, but in fact the second part actually seemed clear to me, as follows:
TONY: 5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)
7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.
dhw: This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.
You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 18:44 (2046 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: OK, before I answer all of these, I am NOT talking about cells, nor stating that atoms are self-aware. Please don't misrepresent my argument as agreeing with either of those statements.
Before you answer, let me emphasize that I am not deliberately misrepresenting your arguments. I found this whole section nebulous, but in fact the second part actually seemed clear to me, as follows:
TONY: 5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)
7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.dhw: This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 21:02 (2046 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: OK, before I answer all of these, I am NOT talking about cells, nor stating that atoms are self-aware. Please don't misrepresent my argument as agreeing with either of those statements.
Before you answer, let me emphasize that I am not deliberately misrepresenting your arguments. I found this whole section nebulous, but in fact the second part actually seemed clear to me, as follows:
TONY: 5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)
7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.dhw: This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
Tony: I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 21:42 (2046 days ago) @ David Turell
TONY: OK, before I answer all of these, I am NOT talking about cells, nor stating that atoms are self-aware. Please don't misrepresent my argument as agreeing with either of those statements.
Before you answer, let me emphasize that I am not deliberately misrepresenting your arguments. I found this whole section nebulous, but in fact the second part actually seemed clear to me, as follows:
TONY: 5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)
7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.dhw: This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
Tony: I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
David: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.
So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
- They are responsive to stimuli.
- They reproduce.
- They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
- They grow in some form over time.
- They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.
As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 22:47 (2046 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
Tony: I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
David: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
Tony: Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
- They are responsive to stimuli.
- They reproduce.
- They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
- They grow in some form over time.
- They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.
As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 13, 2018, 05:03 (2046 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
Tony: I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
David: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
Tony: Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
- They are responsive to stimuli.
- They reproduce.
- They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
- They grow in some form over time.
- They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.
As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
David: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 13, 2018, 05:36 (2046 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW:You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
Tony: I'll respond more fully when I am back at my computer, but perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon basedlife were in the form of single called organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
David: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
Tony: Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
- They are responsive to stimuli.
- They reproduce.
- They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
- They grow in some form over time.
- They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.
As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
David: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
Tony: Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.
Agreed
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DHW: You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
TONY: …perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon based life were in the form of single celled organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
Then I think it’s a little unfair of you to have accused me of misrepresenting your arguments. You could hardly have expected me to realize you were talking about unknown forms of life!
DAVID: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
TONY: Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.
So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
• They are responsive to stimuli.
• They reproduce.
• They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
• They grow in some form over time.
• They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.
I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.
TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.
TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?
DAVID: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
TONY: Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.
I don’t have any problem at all with the idea that if God exists, he is a form of energy. And I don’t have any problem with the idea that if he exists, he created the first forms of life known to us, i.e. cells. I do have a problem with the assumption that there are other forms of life we know nothing about, and therefore we can ignore those forms we do know about. But our subject anyway is meaning, purpose and function. You complained that we did not ask for the purpose of everything, as opposed to just our (human) purpose. Your answer seems to be that God is energy, and there may be other forms of life that are not carbon based (presumably also “spawned” in some way from God’s energy), and the purpose of those (unknown) forms of life is to achieve “fullness”. I appreciate that we are grappling with difficult ideas here, but I hope you will understand why I find some of this so confusing. In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 13, 2018, 13:44 (2046 days ago) @ dhw
Tony: So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
• They are responsive to stimuli.
• They reproduce.
• They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
• They grow in some form over time.
• They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.[/i]DHW I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.
Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.
TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
DHW: I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.
Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?
Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.
DAVID: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
TONY: Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.
DHW: I don’t have any problem at all with the idea that if God exists, he is a form of energy. And I don’t have any problem with the idea that if he exists, he created the first forms of life known to us, i.e. cells. I do have a problem with the assumption that there are other forms of life we know nothing about, and therefore we can ignore those forms we do know about.
No one is ignoring them simply by saying they weren't first.
dHW:But our subject anyway is meaning, purpose and function. You complained that we did not ask for the purpose of everything, as opposed to just our (human) purpose. Your answer seems to be that God is energy, and there may be other forms of life that are not carbon based (presumably also “spawned” in some way from God’s energy), and the purpose of those (unknown) forms of life is to achieve “fullness”. I appreciate that we are grappling with difficult ideas here, but I hope you will understand why I find some of this so confusing. In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DHW: I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.
TONY: Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.
Why is that reasonable? The only form of reproduction we know of is material. I thought you believed the first cause was a unique “spiritual” (as opposed to material) entity you call God. Do you imagine him reproducing himself as other gods? See also below on “spiritual beings”.
TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
DHW: I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.
TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?
TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
Dhw: No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?
TONY: Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.
Agreed re plants, but these other forms of life that we are unaware of are a problem for me. In previous posts you have insisted that we should not believe in things that haven’t been observed (a major and justified objection to my hypothesis that intelligent cells may be capable of inventiveness that goes beyond their powers of adaptation), but here you are conjuring up visions of unknown life forms which you appear to regard as possibly even more real than those we know. Again, what is the purpose? This whole discussion began when you insisted that we should look for the purpose of everything, not just of ourselves.
dHW: In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
David: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 14, 2018, 12:42 (2045 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.
DHW Why is that reasonable? The only form of reproduction we know of is material. I thought you believed the first cause was a unique “spiritual” (as opposed to material) entity you call God. Do you imagine him reproducing himself as other gods? See also below on “spiritual beings”.
Because in our observed experience, like begets like.
TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
DHW They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?
Of course they are "big ifs". The purpose is life, growth, development. There reached a point where it could no longer grow in isolation.
TONY: Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.
DHW; Agreed re plants, but these other forms of life that we are unaware of are a problem for me. In previous posts you have insisted that we should not believe in things that haven’t been observed (a major and justified objection to my hypothesis that intelligent cells may be capable of inventiveness that goes beyond their powers of adaptation), but here you are conjuring up visions of unknown life forms which you appear to regard as possibly even more real than those we know. Again, what is the purpose? This whole discussion began when you insisted that we should look for the purpose of everything, not just of ourselves.
It is a possibility. You have no problem considering that there is a "something" immaterial that interacts with your material body, so why should the consideration of a "something" that doesn't need a material body be such a stretch?
dHW: .. if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). ..
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
DHWW The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
When I can articulate that clearly, I will.
David: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 14, 2018, 15:49 (2045 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.
DHW; Agreed re plants, but these other forms of life that we are unaware of are a problem for me. In previous posts you have insisted that we should not believe in things that haven’t been observed (a major and justified objection to my hypothesis that intelligent cells may be capable of inventiveness that goes beyond their powers of adaptation), but here you are conjuring up visions of unknown life forms which you appear to regard as possibly even more real than those we know. Again, what is the purpose? This whole discussion began when you insisted that we should look for the purpose of everything, not just of ourselves.
Tony: It is a possibility. You have no problem considering that there is a "something" immaterial that interacts with your material body, so why should the consideration of a "something" that doesn't need a material body be such a stretch?
We already have a recognized 'immaterial' affecting a material: the consciousness placebo effect.
dHW: .. if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). ..
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
DHWW The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
Tony: When I can articulate that clearly, I will.
David: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
Tony: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.
I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.
DHW Why is that reasonable? The only form of reproduction we know of is material. I thought you believed the first cause was a unique “spiritual” (as opposed to material) entity you call God. Do you imagine him reproducing himself as other gods? See also below on “spiritual beings”.
TONY: : Because in our observed experience, like begets like.
So did your God “beget” lots of gods like himself, or has he remained unique?
TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
DHW They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?
TONY: Of course they are "big ifs". The purpose is life, growth, development. There reached a point where it could no longer grow in isolation.
“It” presumably means your first cause energy which you call God. So it needed other forms of life to enable itself to grow and develop. Would it be wrong to assume that the only way your God could develop would be through learning from new experiences? In which case, whether he/it started by creating other gods, or simply moved straight to creating material cells is actually irrelevant to the question of purpose. He created material cells because he wanted new experiences from which he could grow and develop. And why did he want to grow and develop? Could it be that he was not satisfied with just being there all on his own, doing and learning nothing?
DHW: In previous posts you have insisted that we should not believe in things that haven’t been observed (a major and justified objection to my hypothesis that intelligent cells may be capable of inventiveness that goes beyond their powers of adaptation), but here you are conjuring up visions of unknown life forms which you appear to regard as possibly even more real than those we know. Again, what is the purpose? This whole discussion began when you insisted that we should look for the purpose of everything, not just of ourselves.
TONY: It is a possibility. You have no problem considering that there is a "something" immaterial that interacts with your material body, so why should the consideration of a "something" that doesn't need a material body be such a stretch?
You are right. I have never said that God’s existence is not a possibility, and I have never rejected the possibility that there is a soul which survives the death of the material body, and so I should not reject the possibility that your God also created other gods, angels, devils and whatever other unknown life forms anybody cares to imagine. However, we are still stuck with your question concerning their purpose, and according to you, the purpose is that these will enable him to grow and develop to “fullness”.
dHW: .. if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). ..
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
DHW: The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
TONY: When I can articulate that clearly, I will.
Until then, I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 15, 2018, 13:42 (2044 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.
DHW Why is that reasonable? The only form of reproduction we know of is material. I thought you believed the first cause was a unique “spiritual” (as opposed to material) entity you call God. Do you imagine him reproducing himself as other gods? See also below on “spiritual beings”.
TONY: : Because in our observed experience, like begets like.
So did your God “beget” lots of gods like himself, or has he remained unique?
From a biblical perspective, he is still unique, despite having created other powerful beings. (Elohim literally means powerful ones, and his title literally is "most powerful one"). There is even implications in the Bible that at some point humanity has the potential to become "like god", though to what extent is still unclear.
TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
DHW They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?
TONY: Of course they are "big ifs". The purpose is life, growth, development. There reached a point where it could no longer grow in isolation.
“It” presumably means your first cause energy which you call God. So it needed other forms of life to enable itself to grow and develop. Would it be wrong to assume that the only way your God could develop would be through learning from new experiences? In which case, whether he/it started by creating other gods, or simply moved straight to creating material cells is actually irrelevant to the question of purpose. He created material cells because he wanted new experiences from which he could grow and develop. And why did he want to grow and develop? Could it be that he was not satisfied with just being there all on his own, doing and learning nothing?
I don't think it is irrelevant, from a logical perspective or from a perspective of his development. First, it makes sense that he would create others similar to himself before making those unlike himself. Second, it makes sense that he would start with a single prototype before trying to create a universe. Third, from a biblical perspective, he let others do much of the work of creating the universe, but he supplied the power and knowledge. I don't think it is possible for a living being NOT to seek new experiences. I think if we hit that point, death awaits.
TONY: It is a possibility. You have no problem considering that there is a "something" immaterial that interacts with your material body, so why should the consideration of a "something" that doesn't need a material body be such a stretch?
DHW You are right. I have never said that God’s existence is not a possibility, and I have never rejected the possibility that there is a soul which survives the death of the material body, and so I should not reject the possibility that your God also created other gods, angels, devils and whatever other unknown life forms anybody cares to imagine. However, we are still stuck with your question concerning their purpose, and according to you, the purpose is that these will enable him to grow and develop to “fullness”.
dHW: .. if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). ..
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
DHW: The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
TONY: When I can articulate that clearly, I will.
DHW Until then, I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?
That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, September 15, 2018, 19:21 (2043 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: : Because in our observed experience, like begets like.
So did your God “beget” lots of gods like himself, or has he remained unique?
Tony: From a biblical perspective, he is still unique, despite having created other powerful beings. (Elohim literally means powerful ones, and his title literally is "most powerful one"). There is even implications in the Bible that at some point humanity has the potential to become "like god", though to what extent is still unclear.
TONY: Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?
DHW They are big “ifs”, but for argument’s sake I’ll accept them. How does this explain the “first direct act of creation” as being an immaterial mind giving birth to another immaterial mind? And again, what is the purpose?
TONY: Of course they are "big ifs". The purpose is life, growth, development. There reached a point where it could no longer grow in isolation.
dhw: “It” presumably means your first cause energy which you call God. So it needed other forms of life to enable itself to grow and develop. Would it be wrong to assume that the only way your God could develop would be through learning from new experiences? In which case, whether he/it started by creating other gods, or simply moved straight to creating material cells is actually irrelevant to the question of purpose. He created material cells because he wanted new experiences from which he could grow and develop. And why did he want to grow and develop? Could it be that he was not satisfied with just being there all on his own, doing and learning nothing?
Tony: I don't think it is irrelevant, from a logical perspective or from a perspective of his development. First, it makes sense that he would create others similar to himself before making those unlike himself. Second, it makes sense that he would start with a single prototype before trying to create a universe. Third, from a biblical perspective, he let others do much of the work of creating the universe, but he supplied the power and knowledge. I don't think it is possible for a living being NOT to seek new experiences. I think if we hit that point, death awaits.
TONY: It is a possibility. You have no problem considering that there is a "something" immaterial that interacts with your material body, so why should the consideration of a "something" that doesn't need a material body be such a stretch?
DHW You are right. I have never said that God’s existence is not a possibility, and I have never rejected the possibility that there is a soul which survives the death of the material body, and so I should not reject the possibility that your God also created other gods, angels, devils and whatever other unknown life forms anybody cares to imagine. However, we are still stuck with your question concerning their purpose, and according to you, the purpose is that these will enable him to grow and develop to “fullness”.
dHW: .. if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). ..
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
DHW: The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
TONY: When I can articulate that clearly, I will.
DHW Until then, I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?
Tony: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: Because in our observed experience, like begets like.
Dhw: So did your God “beget” lots of gods like himself, or has he remained unique?
TONY: From a biblical perspective, he is still unique, despite having created other powerful beings. (Elohim literally means powerful ones, and his title literally is "most powerful one"). There is even implications in the Bible that at some point humanity has the potential to become "like god", though to what extent is still unclear.
Previously you thought science was the “best evidence”, but I always get the impression that you regard the Bible as the best evidence! Anyway, we now have your God creating powerful spiritual beings who are like him but less powerful. Why do you think he did that?
TONY: […] The purpose is life, growth, development. There reached a point where it could no longer grow in isolation.
Dhw: “It” presumably means your first cause energy which you call God. So it needed other forms of life to enable itself to grow and develop. Would it be wrong to assume that the only way your God could develop would be through learning from new experiences? In which case, whether he/it started by creating other gods, or simply moved straight to creating material cells is actually irrelevant to the question of purpose.
TONY: I don't think it is irrelevant, from a logical perspective or from a perspective of his development. First, it makes sense that he would create others similar to himself before making those unlike himself.
According to Genesis 1:26 God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness”, so we’re not unlike himself, are we? But in any case, why couldn’t he have created these other superbeings to extend his own experience? Surely Satan must have taught him a thing or two – he really livened things up, didn’t he?
TONY: Second, it makes sense that he would start with a single prototype before trying to create a universe.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Single prototype of what? A practice universe? A practice cell? A practice human? I thought these superbeings were different from us.
TONY: Third, from a biblical perspective, he let others do much of the work of creating the universe, but he supplied the power and knowledge.
This, I must confess, is new to me. I thought he did it all himself, but now apparently he created all these other powerful beings as a workforce. Well, at least that explains their purpose. He needed help.
TONY: I don't think it is possible for a living being NOT to seek new experiences. I think if we hit that point, death awaits.
Agreed. Your God, in whose image we are apparently made, was bound to seek new experience. Otherwise, figuratively speaking, he might have been bored to death.
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?
TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
DAVID: It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
dhw: Correction:Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"?
DAVID: Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
You criticized my hypothesis as trivializing God. You have then completely ignored my response. Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 15:16 (2043 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
dhw: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
DAVID: It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
dhw: Correction:Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"?
DAVID: Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
dhw: You criticized my hypothesis as trivializing God. You have then completely ignored my response. Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but a the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 17:14 (2042 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
dhw: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
DAVID: It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
dhw: Correction:Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"?
DAVID: Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
dhw: You criticized my hypothesis as trivializing God. You have then completely ignored my response. Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
David: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but a the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 18:39 (2042 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
dhw: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
DAVID: It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
dhw: Correction:Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"?
DAVID: Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
dhw: You criticized my hypothesis as trivializing God. You have then completely ignored my response. Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
David: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but at the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
Tony: I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.
My impression of the first five books of the Bible is confirmed by my encyclopedic dictionary of the OT. Deut: 10-14 says He is all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent and all efficient. Also confirmed in Ps. 139: 1-24; Job:12-22.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 17, 2018, 03:36 (2042 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
dhw: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
DAVID: It is trivial in the sense that dhw persists in humanizing God as he imagines God.
dhw: Correction:Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"?
DAVID: Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
dhw: You criticized my hypothesis as trivializing God. You have then completely ignored my response. Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
David: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but at the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
Tony: I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.
david: My impression of the first five books of the Bible is confirmed by my encyclopedic dictionary of the OT. Deut: 10-14 says He is all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent and all efficient. Also confirmed in Ps. 139: 1-24; Job:12-22.
I can write a computer program and know every variable in that program, but that does not mean I know everything. Likewise, while I certainly accept that God knows everything about his creation, I do not necessarily agree that there is no room for him to grow in might, power, knowledge, or some other metric. Yet, it suffices to say that he is so far beyond anything we can understand that, for our purposes, he may as well. Also, while omnipotence and omniscience are loosely supported in biblical terms, omnipresence is absolutely NOT supported biblically. He is often referred to as having a specific 'dwelling place' and as moving about or traveling.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 17, 2018, 14:58 (2042 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but at the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
Tony: I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.
david: My impression of the first five books of the Bible is confirmed by my encyclopedic dictionary of the OT. Deut: 10-14 says He is all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent and all efficient. Also confirmed in Ps. 139: 1-24; Job:12-22.
Tony: I can write a computer program and know every variable in that program, but that does not mean I know everything. Likewise, while I certainly accept that God knows everything about his creation, I do not necessarily agree that there is no room for him to grow in might, power, knowledge, or some other metric. Yet, it suffices to say that he is so far beyond anything we can understand that, for our purposes, he may as well. Also, while omnipotence and omniscience are loosely supported in biblical terms, omnipresence is absolutely NOT supported biblically. He is often referred to as having a specific 'dwelling place' and as moving about or traveling.
I see you are analyzing what The Bible says about God from the New Testament. I'm not well-versed in the Bible, and I do not view it as knowledge given from God, but written by people. I use it as a guide for my thoughts about Him.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 17:00 (2043 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: From a biblical perspective, he is still unique, despite having created other powerful beings. (Elohim literally means powerful ones, and his title literally is "most powerful one"). There is even implications in the Bible that at some point humanity has the potential to become "like god", though to what extent is still unclear.
DHW: Previously you thought science was the “best evidence”, but I always get the impression that you regard the Bible as the best evidence! Anyway, we now have your God creating powerful spiritual beings who are like him but less powerful. Why do you think he did that?
I don't see the disparity between the Bible and Science that most people claim exists. In fact, I see that Science routinely confirms the Bible. Until I find something that utterly disproves the bible, I will continue to see it as a vital source of thought about reality. As to the second part, I think he did it for multiple reasons. First, to grow himself. By creating others, he gives himself room to grow in a way he could not alone. Secondly, from a biblical perspective, His first born son was his first creation, and all other things were created through and for his Son. Yet his Son claimed that he did all things by the will of his Father, and gave his Father all the credit. So to me, all of this is an act that teaches his greatest qualities to His son, justice, power, wisdom, and love in exquisite balance, a fact confirmed in Revelation when the four symbols of these qualities finally bow to the son and proclaim him worthy to continue his Father's work. That said, they are both cited as loving their creation, so at smaller scales, we will find purposes that are specific to each level of creation, all born out with justice(balance), power, wisdom, and love.
DHW: According to Genesis 1:26 God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness”, so we’re not unlike himself, are we? But in any case, why couldn’t he have created these other superbeings to extend his own experience? Surely Satan must have taught him a thing or two – he really livened things up, didn’t he?
No, we are not unlike God. Even more interesting is that it is the combination of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life that would have made us 'Gods'. Also the fact that God himself supposedly claimed that humanity was capable of anything they set their hand to.
I have explicitly said that part of his purpose was to extend his own experience. He also created them as workers to further his own designs, and more importantly, gave them the free will to choose whether or not to do so. However, I don't see it as entertainment, but rather as education, or growth. Yes, Satan did liven things up...he challenged God's right to rule. And that political rebellion will eventually end in a most spectacular fashion.
DHW: Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Single prototype of what? A practice universe? A practice cell? A practice human? I thought these superbeings were different from us.
His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God. Everything else was created through the son, by God's will and using God's power. Of course, it also talks about work being delegated down the line to other creatures as well. So, the original source creates a single entity. Then teaches that entity over an unknowable period of time. Then together they produce other entities of the same type (spiritual)(Colossians 1:16). Then all of them working together began creating the material world. What exactly their role was in such things, it doesn't say, but their name literally means 'messenger', and there are numerous accounts of them doing all manner of tasks.
TONY: Third, from a biblical perspective, he let others do much of the work of creating the universe, but he supplied the power and knowledge.DHW: This, I must confess, is new to me. I thought he did it all himself, but now apparently he created all these other powerful beings as a workforce. Well, at least that explains their purpose. He needed help.
What, you thought the angels just sat around on fluffy clouds playing harps? I am not sure if 'help' is the right word, but it will do for now.
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
DHW: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
Labeling it as entertainment to relieve boredom trivializes it. Did you marry your wife because you were bored? Would you have ever said that of yourself to her face? Or have children because you were bored? Or maybe you provided good things and taught them good things because you were bored? If I characterized the entirety of all the works of your hands through your entire life as "Maybe DHW was just bored" would you feel as if I had just trivialized everything you've done?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 18:23 (2042 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: I have to say I see very little difference between your concept of the “purpose of everything” and my own theistic hypothesis. Your God had had enough of his isolation, and wanted something other than himself to focus on so that he could have a fuller existence. Sort of relieving the boredom, wouldn’t you say?
TONY: That still seems a trivial summary compared to growth.
DHW: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. See above. Why is that trivial?
Tony: Labeling it as entertainment to relieve boredom trivializes it. Did you marry your wife because you were bored? Would you have ever said that of yourself to her face? Or have children because you were bored? Or maybe you provided good things and taught them good things because you were bored? If I characterized the entirety of all the works of your hands through your entire life as "Maybe DHW was just bored" would you feel as if I had just trivialized everything you've done?
Thank you for describing dhw's theory as trivializing. A better word than my 'humanizing'.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
I am juxtaposing entries for the sake of coherence.
DHW : Previously you thought science was the “best evidence”, but I always get the impression that you regard the Bible as the best evidence!
TONY: I don't see the disparity between the Bible and Science that most people claim exists. In fact, I see that Science routinely confirms the Bible.
You go on to talk about Christ as the “first creation”, God teaching him all about justice, power, wisdom, love etc. You believe in angels and spirits and Satan. This is all Bible without a jot of science. As I’ve commented under “pointy eggs”, science has many mysteries to solve, but I have no knowledge of it ever having provided the best evidence for your own solution to the mystery.
TONY: His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God. Everything else was created through the son, by God's will and using God's power. Of course, it also talks about work being delegated down the line to other creatures as well... etc.
So God didn’t create anything except Christ, told him how to build the universe (and presumably life), and Christ passed on the instructions to other superbeings. So Christ must have created them too (and Satan). I don’t really understand why your God had to do it this way, instead of doing it himself, as per Genesis 1:1, and I don’t know what all this is relevant to. Science as the best evidence? God’s purpose? He still wants to “grow”, doesn’t he?
Dhw (to David): Why is it trivial to learn about love, hate, enjoyment, suffering etc.?
DAVID: Why should God have to learn about emotions if He knows all to begin with? He may have created us to see how we handle those emotions since He gave us consciousness with self-awareness to reason about problems, which is consistent with your idea of 'spectacle' but at the mental level, not your 'zoo ' level.
TONY: I can't speak for the Torah, but the Bible doesn't claim God knew everything from the very beginning.
I’ll leave you both to squabble over what the Bible says. You can also squabble over purpose: David thinks God created a spectacle to see how humans handle what he already knows about. (David, do you watch King Lear at ‘mental’ or ‘zoo’ level?) Tony thinks the purpose was for God’s own growth and development (learning from new experiences).
DHW: I interpret your “growth” and "development” as a fuller existence through an expansion of his experience, which could not have happened without him ending his isolation. Why is that trivial?
TONY: Labeling it as entertainment to relieve boredom trivializes it. Did you marry your wife because you were bored? Would you have ever said that of yourself to her face? Or have children because you were bored? Or maybe you provided good things and taught them good things because you were bored? If I characterized the entirety of all the works of your hands through your entire life as "Maybe DHW was just bored" would you feel as if I had just trivialized everything you've done?
You used the trivializing word entertainment. My word was spectacle (though that could include entertainment). Your analogy is just about as false as it could be. I was born into a world full of problems and opportunities and emotions and needs. If you want a human analogy to your God’s isolated situation, then imagine yourself alone in an empty cell with nothing to see, nothing to do, no one to talk to, nothing, nothing, nothing except your own company for ever and ever. Wouldn’t you long for something to relieve the tedium?
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]
TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.
You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 17, 2018, 13:00 (2042 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]
TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.
You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
DHW: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 17, 2018, 15:29 (2042 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]
TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.
dhw: You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
DHW: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
Tony: Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).
But those individual purposes are designed to create a homeostasis for Earth to accommodate
life. It all dovetails.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 00:24 (2041 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]
TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.
dhw: You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
DHW: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
Tony: Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).
David; But those individual purposes are designed to create a homeostasis for Earth to accommodate
life. It all dovetails.
Indeed it does.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
DHW: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
TONY: Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).
Ugh! It would take all of us a lifetime to discuss purposes at individual level. However, you seemed happy enough to join in the discussion on an all-encompassing purpose, and informed us that you thought your God created Christ and got him to create other superbeings to help create the universe and life, because he wanted to grow and develop and needed to end his isolation in order to do so. I consider this to be similar if not identical to the hypothesis that an eternity of isolation would have been unbearably boring, and creating the spectacle of life would have given your God a vast range of new experiences to help him grow and develop. Do you no longer consider this to be worth discussing?
DAVID: If you will accept that one main purpose was the creation of humans to relate to God, it all fits together. To create life the complexity of biochemistry had to be designed. Design requires a designer with purpose, which is all you will accept. Your purpose of spectacle is trivial and humanizing God. I know that as a playwright you are very impressed with spectacle. The Grand Canyon is much more impressive than any play I've seen, although I've enjoyed your writings.
I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 15:44 (2041 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
DHW: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
TONY: Perhaps it was my own poor wording when I said purpose in everything. When I made that statement, I was trying to ask what is the purpose of everything, but at an individual level. What is the purpose of oil, wind, rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, plant uv signalling, the backward retina, shark's electrical sensitivity, etc, not the purpose of everything (all encompassing).
Ugh! It would take all of us a lifetime to discuss purposes at individual level. However, you seemed happy enough to join in the discussion on an all-encompassing purpose, and informed us that you thought your God created Christ and got him to create other superbeings to help create the universe and life, because he wanted to grow and develop and needed to end his isolation in order to do so. I consider this to be similar if not identical to the hypothesis that an eternity of isolation would have been unbearably boring, and creating the spectacle of life would have given your God a vast range of new experiences to help him grow and develop. Do you no longer consider this to be worth discussing?
DAVID: If you will accept that one main purpose was the creation of humans to relate to God, it all fits together. To create life the complexity of biochemistry had to be designed. Design requires a designer with purpose, which is all you will accept. Your purpose of spectacle is trivial and humanizing God. I know that as a playwright you are very impressed with spectacle. The Grand Canyon is much more impressive than any play I've seen, although I've enjoyed your writings.
dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory. Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 15:07 (2040 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
dhw: It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
All I am pointing out is that most mature way to judge God is study His works. Not surprisingly , they are very complex and require design.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
dhw: It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
DAVID: All I am pointing out is that most mature way to judge God is study His works. Not surprisingly , they are very complex and require design.
Our subject is purpose, not design. Thank you again for supporting the spectacle theory. I’m sorry you have not commented on the reason for your God wanting to prove himself.
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
DAVID: dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.
What in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? You have repeatedly told us that making humans was THE purpose, later reduced to one main purpose. That is not “pure” purpose, it is a specific purpose. When challenged, you have now also come up with my spectacle hypothesis – thank you – and the theory that he wants to prove himself to us, and also that he wants to have a relationship with us (though he remains hidden). If there is a God, and if he created life, it seems to me perfectly logical that he must have had a specific purpose. Clearly you can’t fault the logic of what I have suggested (which also fits in neatly with Tony’s idea of his God wanting to grow and develop) and so you try to dismiss it as “humanizing”. How do you know, and why is it even logical, that your God created beings with feelings that he doesn’t have?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 18:41 (2038 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
dhw: It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
DAVID: All I am pointing out is that most mature way to judge God is study His works. Not surprisingly , they are very complex and require design.
dhw: Our subject is purpose, not design. Thank you again for supporting the spectacle theory. I’m sorry you have not commented on the reason for your God wanting to prove himself.
God is purposely hidden. We study Him thru His works and of course He recognizes that approach. We can not separate purpose and design. They are hand in hand, as one implies the other.
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.dhw: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
I can 't answer for Tony but God's creations are complex and reek of design and the designer.
DAVID: dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.dhw: What in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? You have repeatedly told us that making humans was THE purpose, later reduced to one main purpose. That is not “pure” purpose, it is a specific purpose. When challenged, you have now also come up with my spectacle hypothesis – thank you – and the theory that he wants to prove himself to us, and also that he wants to have a relationship with us (though he remains hidden). If there is a God, and if he created life, it seems to me perfectly logical that he must have had a specific purpose. Clearly you can’t fault the logic of what I have suggested (which also fits in neatly with Tony’s idea of his God wanting to grow and develop) and so you try to dismiss it as “humanizing”. How do you know, and why is it even logical, that your God created beings with feelings that he doesn’t have?
'Pure purpose' is just a way of stating that God is always very purposeful in what HE does at all times. I thought the phrase would be understood as implying how purposeful God is. If God created the universe and life of course that shows purpose. I'm sure God has His own set of feelings, at which we can only guess, and I'm sure He recognizes ours. Back to Adler: "He is a personality like no other personality ". That is obvious. Adler states that any anthropomorphizing of God is an approach of 'superstition' not true religious thought, a paraphrased quote from Adler. I view your approach as trying to imagine God from your human point of view. Adler tells me not to do that.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 22:48 (2038 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself. Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientist don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet, including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather, water generation and filtration, soil enrichment, metabolizing minerals into something more useful, solid and liquid toxicity level control, sequestration of toxic gasses, and production of life sustaining gasses, and serving as, or producing food (often both).
But I suppose the type of being that things of all that and so much more, while managing to make it all beautiful and wonderful, and creating creatures with the capacity to appreciate beauty and all the wondrous things, was just 'bored', 'vain', and frivolous. Oh, and he should just come one out and tell it all like it is, because that's how people learn and grow into intelligent, resourceful creatures, right?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:11 (2038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
Tony: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself. Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientist don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet, including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather, water generation and filtration, soil enrichment, metabolizing minerals into something more useful, solid and liquid toxicity level control, sequestration of toxic gasses, and production of life sustaining gasses, and serving as, or producing food (often both).
But I suppose the type of being that things of all that and so much more, while managing to make it all beautiful and wonderful, and creating creatures with the capacity to appreciate beauty and all the wondrous things, was just 'bored', 'vain', and frivolous. Oh, and he should just come one out and tell it all like it is, because that's how people learn and grow into intelligent, resourceful creatures, right?
Wow. I've been much more gentle about dhw and his persistence in humanizing God. I don't think he understands that God is not like us in any way.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:32 (2038 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
Tony: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself. Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientist don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet, including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather, water generation and filtration, soil enrichment, metabolizing minerals into something more useful, solid and liquid toxicity level control, sequestration of toxic gasses, and production of life sustaining gasses, and serving as, or producing food (often both).
But I suppose the type of being that things of all that and so much more, while managing to make it all beautiful and wonderful, and creating creatures with the capacity to appreciate beauty and all the wondrous things, was just 'bored', 'vain', and frivolous. Oh, and he should just come one out and tell it all like it is, because that's how people learn and grow into intelligent, resourceful creatures, right?
David: Wow. I've been much more gentle about dhw and his persistence in humanizing God. I don't think he understands that God is not like us in any way.
I wasn't trying to be rude about it, but that is how his line of thought comes across. If we point to purpose, he almost always reverts to "God was just bored"(frivolous, capricious). If I answer a question about why he may have done something a certain way, he generally reverts to some variation of "God didn't do it in a way I like, so he must be egotistical(arrogant, less powerful, vain, more ignorant(experimenting/dabbling/making corrections). And when push comes to shove, he reverts to "Well why doesn't he just pop out and set us straight?", implying either cowardice, indifference, apathy, or a sadistic sense of voyeurism.
The part that bugs me is not simply that DHW says these things, but rather that I rarely, if ever, see an honest review of the flip side of the possibility coin from him. What if God were intelligent, powerful, wise, loving, and had a sense of fairness/balance/justice, that is simply not our own? Might he have done or allowed the things that occurred for a loftier goal than we can conceive? Does he have the right/power/authority/knowledge/power to do so? Would his other qualities, if they exist, provide some balance to his allowing/causing things to happen?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:47 (2038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
Tony: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself. Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientist don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet, including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather, water generation and filtration, soil enrichment, metabolizing minerals into something more useful, solid and liquid toxicity level control, sequestration of toxic gasses, and production of life sustaining gasses, and serving as, or producing food (often both).
But I suppose the type of being that things of all that and so much more, while managing to make it all beautiful and wonderful, and creating creatures with the capacity to appreciate beauty and all the wondrous things, was just 'bored', 'vain', and frivolous. Oh, and he should just come one out and tell it all like it is, because that's how people learn and grow into intelligent, resourceful creatures, right?
David: Wow. I've been much more gentle about dhw and his persistence in humanizing God. I don't think he understands that God is not like us in any way.
Tony:I wasn't trying to be rude about it, but that is how his line of thought comes across. If we point to purpose, he almost always reverts to "God was just bored"(frivolous, capricious). If I answer a question about why he may have done something a certain way, he generally reverts to some variation of "God didn't do it in a way I like, so he must be egotistical(arrogant, less powerful, vain, more ignorant(experimenting/dabbling/making corrections). And when push comes to shove, he reverts to "Well why doesn't he just pop out and set us straight?", implying either cowardice, indifference, apathy, or a sadistic sense of voyeurism.The part that bugs me is not simply that DHW says these things, but rather that I rarely, if ever, see an honest review of the flip side of the possibility coin from him. What if God were intelligent, powerful, wise, loving, and had a sense of fairness/balance/justice, that is simply not our own? Might he have done or allowed the things that occurred for a loftier goal than we can conceive? Does he have the right/power/authority/knowledge/power to do so? Would his other qualities, if they exist, provide some balance to his allowing/causing things to happen?
At least we are not secretly psychoanalyzing him behind his back. He has a problem he does not see in himself, and you have explained it better than i have in the past.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART ONE
dhw: Our subject is purpose, not design. Thank you again for supporting the spectacle theory. I’m sorry you have not commented on the reason for your God wanting to prove himself.
DAVID: God is purposely hidden. We study Him thru His works and of course He recognizes that approach. We can not separate purpose and design. They are hand in hand, as one implies the other.
Of course. And I am wearing my theist hat as we speculate on what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.
dhw: What in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? [...]
DAVID: 'Pure purpose' is just a way of stating that God is always very purposeful in what HE does at all times.
No problem, then. What we are trying to establish is what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: I'm sure God has His own set of feelings, at which we can only guess, and I'm sure He recognizes ours.
No problem either. It doesn’t tell us what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: […] I view your approach as trying to imagine God from your human point of view. Adler tells me not to do that.
I couldn’t care less what Adler tells you to do. You have offered us several humanizing purposes of your own, which entail a relationship with us, proving himself to us, and – I’m pleased to say – providing a spectacle for himself.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: [..] [b]why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?[/b] If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
TONY: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
Where do you get all these words from? Certainly not from me. David suggested he wanted to prove himself to us, and I asked if David thought he was that vain. I did not say he was vain, and I have never used any of the other words you attribute to me except “bored”. We are discussing your God’s possible purpose. I suggest that he was tired of being on his own and therefore wanted to create something to relieve the boredom. You have suggested that he wanted to grow and develop, and therefore needed to end his isolation. I see virtually no difference. There is absolutely nothing negative in this. I asked you why the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating was more trivial than your God aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”, and you answered “When I can articulate that I will.” You have answered by putting negative words in my mouth that i have never used.
TONY: I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself.
David suggests that he “wanted to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles he could create”. Sounds feasible to me. I must confess I find it difficult to believe that every single life form extant and extinct was essential to “terraform” (?) the earth.
TONY: Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientists don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather etc. etc.
The rest is fine with me.
Continued…
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART TWO
TONY: But I suppose the type of being that things of all that and so much more, while managing to make it all beautiful and wonderful, and creating creatures with the capacity to appreciate beauty and all the wondrous things, was just 'bored', 'vain', and frivolous. Oh, and he should just come one out and tell it all like it is, because that's how people learn and grow into intelligent, resourceful creatures, right?
Wrong, and I don’t know why you keep putting such words into my mouth. I have never denied the beauty or the wonder, just as I have never ignored the ugliness and the horror (which you have just done), I have not suggested that he should come out and tell it all (but I challenged the idea that he wanted to prove himself by exhibiting his powers while remaining hidden), and in relation to your God’s growth and development I asked David why he thought it was “trivial” for God to learn “what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose”. He did not answer. Perhaps you will.
TONY: I wasn't trying to be rude about it, but that is how his line of thought comes across. If we point to purpose, he almost always reverts to "God was just bored"(frivolous, capricious).
I know you are not trying to be rude (we have always been frank in our exchanges!) but you are unwittingly distorting my arguments. "Not “just” bored. Bored. Now please tell me why your God's creation of this fascinating world in order to end his isolation and give himself something new to experience (my hypothesis) is frivolous or capricious, or more trivial than the desire to grow and develop by ending his isolation (your hypothesis).
TONY: If I answer a question about why he may have done something a certain way, he generally reverts to some variation of "God didn't do it in a way I like, so he must be egotistical (arrogant, less powerful, vain, more ignorant(experimenting/dabbling/making corrections).
Again, why are you making up all these negatives which I have never expressed? The only genuine references here are to the possibility that your God experimented, dabbled, made corrections – all part of the great learning experience which you call growing and developing, and which I suggest was motivated by his desire to end the boredom of eternal isolation.
TONY: And when push comes to shove, he reverts to "Well why doesn't he just pop out and set us straight?", implying either cowardice, indifference, apathy, or a sadistic sense of voyeurism
By “set us straight”, I presume you mean to end the evil and the suffering humans have both caused and endured. That is a very different question from those we have been discussing, but I have never “reverted” to it. You are confusing me with someone else.
TONY: The part that bugs me is not simply that DHW says these things…
I do not. You have extrapolated them all from the single hypothesis that your God may have grown tired of isolation and in order to relieve his boredom had created the world as we know it.
TONY: …but rather that I rarely, if ever, see an honest review of the flip side of the possibility coin from him. What if God were intelligent, powerful, wise, loving, and had a sense of fairness/balance/justice, that is simply not our own? Might he have done or allowed the things that occurred for a loftier goal than we can conceive? Does he have the right/power/authority/knowledge/power to do so? Would his other qualities, if they exist, provide some balance to his allowing/causing things to happen?
I suspect that all this boils down to your misplaced belief that I have somewhere attacked your God for creating evil and ugliness. However, it is a very common argument and a fair question and I will try to cover it briefly below:
DAVID: At least we are not secretly psychoanalyzing him behind his back. He has a problem he does not see in himself, and you have explained it better than I have in the past.
No, to my face you are setting up straw men for yourselves to knock down. Here in summary are my problems: I do not know if God exists or not. If he does, I do not know why he created life, but I can well imagine him having done so in order to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. I do not know his nature, but again I can well imagine that if he created us, he will not have created something unknown to himself, and so he himself will have known love, hatred, boredom, interest, beauty, ugliness, good, evil within himself as first cause. And I would argue that it is the very existence of the negatives that give full “value” to the positives (summarizing an answer I have given in the past when discussing the subject of evil). On the other hand, I can also accept the possibility raised by Tony that God himself has learned some of this from his experience of life through his creations (maybe even in past universes – who knows?).
************
There is a distinct possibility that I may not have time to post any answers until Sunday, and Tuesday and Wednesday may be blank as well. My apologies in advance.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:51 (2037 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO
TONY: …but rather that I rarely, if ever, see an honest review of the flip side of the possibility coin from him. What if God were intelligent, powerful, wise, loving, and had a sense of fairness/balance/justice, that is simply not our own? Might he have done or allowed the things that occurred for a loftier goal than we can conceive? Does he have the right/power/authority/knowledge/power to do so? Would his other qualities, if they exist, provide some balance to his allowing/causing things to happen?
dhw:I suspect that all this boils down to your misplaced belief that I have somewhere attacked your God for creating evil and ugliness. However, it is a very common argument and a fair question and I will try to cover it briefly below:
DAVID: At least we are not secretly psychoanalyzing him behind his back. He has a problem he does not see in himself, and you have explained it better than I have in the past.
dhw: No, to my face you are setting up straw men for yourselves to knock down. Here in summary are my problems: I do not know if God exists or not. If he does, I do not know why he created life, but I can well imagine him having done so in order to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. I do not know his nature, but again I can well imagine that if he created us, he will not have created something unknown to himself, and so he himself will have known love, hatred, boredom, interest, beauty, ugliness, good, evil within himself as first cause. And I would argue that it is the very existence of the negatives that give full “value” to the positives (summarizing an answer I have given in the past when discussing the subject of evil). On the other hand, I can also accept the possibility raised by Tony that God himself has learned some of this from his experience of life through his creations (maybe even in past universes – who knows?).
Yes, how knows?! Your problem is ours. None of us 'know' if God exists. We cannot 'know'. That is where faith has to appear. Belief in him for me is a logical conclusion. You cannot reach that result for some innate reason, which I believe is that you want absolute truth. That is never available. And I know you know all this about yourself.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 22, 2018, 00:15 (2037 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO
DHW I don’t know why you keep putting such words into my mouth. I have never denied the beauty or the wonder, just as I have never ignored the ugliness and the horror (which you have just done), I have not suggested that he should come out and tell it all..Again, why are you making up all these negatives which I have never expressed?... By “set us straight”, I presume you mean to end the evil and the suffering humans have both caused and endured.
The only two words that I directly quoted, you did use in that very same series. The others are implied in the way you approach the topic. And I quote:
"DHW:Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?[/b] If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation"
"..perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement..... As First Cause it has nothing to be conscious of except itself. Frankly, what a bore! And so it decides to create something to relieve the boredom of eternal introspection.
Under Watching Asteroids:
"The idea of a spectacle does not exclude love, and I can well believe that your God might for instance love humans who worship him, but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
DHW... "Not “just” bored. Bored. Now please tell me why [boredom] is frivolous or capricious, or more trivial than the desire to grow and develop by ending his isolation (your hypothesis).
Doing something because your bored is like saying, "I have nothing better to do, so why not.." It doesn't imply any larger motive than simply alleviation of boredom.By definition that is frivolous. It does not imply growth, it does not imply purpose, other than He's "bored and lonely". Further, it implies that when he grows bored with us, we will just get tossed aside too, because He is indifferent to to the suffering of others that he allowed for his own 'selfish amusement'. That is what makes it not only more frivolous and capricious, but in its own way, malicious. Like a kid pulling insects off a fly.
I was paraphrasing. For example, in response to David:
"DHW:Thank you. So your God is capable of creating instant speciation, but for some reason he does NOT instantly create the one species he actually wants to create." (This is the 'he didn't do it my way' argument.)
No, by "set us straight"you say things like;
"dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us.(he didn't do it my way) All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us?"
And:
"DHW: Why not acknowledge the possibility (which is all it can be) that what we have IS God’s goal – namely, a massive free-for-all, full of nice and nasty, good and evil, joy and sadness, birth and death, extinction and survival?..so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show."
As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?
Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
So, you won't acknowledge him unless he step out from behind a cloud for you, but you won't even dig through his hand books with an open mind and consider the advice in light of your own experiences and You won't even go so far as to acknowledge that he actually exists, because well, you can't KNOW it.
DHW: I suspect that all this boils down to your misplaced belief that I have somewhere attacked your God for creating evil and ugliness.
No, it all comes down to a kind of odd play at neutrality, that is skewed beneath the surface. Let me ask a simple question. Have you spent as much time researching ANY supposedly 'holy text' compared to the time and energy you have devoted to the study science or philosophy?
Dhw... you are setting up straw men for yourselves to knock down.
No straw men.
For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on. But then they would reach the limits that they could reach as just two, in terms of growth, so they created more ad infinitum. How else would he have the frame of reference to say "It is not good(functional) for man to be alone." and then to proceed to create something whose name was synonymous with passion, to motivate us to our task of molding the world. (Even if the words were never spoken, if you give him credit for creation, you have to give him credit for the thought that went into it.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, September 22, 2018, 15:45 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: "DHW: Why not acknowledge the possibility (which is all it can be) that what we have IS God’s goal – namely, a massive free-for-all, full of nice and nasty, good and evil, joy and sadness, birth and death, extinction and survival?..so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show."
As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?
Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
So, you won't acknowledge him unless he step out from behind a cloud for you, but you won't even dig through his hand books with an open mind and consider the advice in light of your own experiences and You won't even go so far as to acknowledge that he actually exists, because well, you can't KNOW it.
DHW: I suspect that all this boils down to your misplaced belief that I have somewhere attacked your God for creating evil and ugliness.
Tony: No, it all comes down to a kind of odd play at neutrality, that is skewed beneath the surface. Let me ask a simple question. Have you spent as much time researching ANY supposedly 'holy text' compared to the time and energy you have devoted to the study science or philosophy?
Dhw... you are setting up straw men for yourselves to knock down.
No straw men.Tony: For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on. But then they would reach the limits that they could reach as just two, in terms of growth, so they created more ad infinitum. How else would he have the frame of reference to say "It is not good(functional) for man to be alone." and then to proceed to create something whose name was synonymous with passion, to motivate us to our task of molding the world. (Even if the words were never spoken, if you give him credit for creation, you have to give him credit for the thought that went into it.)
Yes, no straw men. Tony has given a Bible-based view of God that is beyond a human being. I cannot do this without Tony's background, so my previous complaints could not have been this full fleshed, but it is obvious I accept Tony's view. I firmly believe as in Adler's view: a personage like no other person.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART ONE
For the sake of brevity and coherence, I shall juxtapose some of the entries:
DAVID: Yes, who knows?! Your problem is ours. None of us 'know' if God exists. We cannot 'know'. That is where faith has to appear. Belief in him for me is a logical conclusion. You cannot reach that result for some innate reason, which I believe is that you want absolute truth.
Of course we would all like to have “absolute truth”, and of course we can’t have it, but faith does not “have to appear”. The “innate reason” why I cannot share your logical conclusion is that it is no more and no less logical than the opposite conclusion.
dhw: Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?[/b] If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation"
TONY: When David mentions that he offered proof through works, you jumped to "Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?" Sure, you threw a question mark on it, but the implication was not made by David. How does one offering proof of ability and purpose correlate to vanity? Why should an individual that created something not be rightly proud of their creation, and want the credit for having created it? Is that vanity?
You have ignored the context. David constantly complains that in searching for purpose, I humanize his God, and so he rejects the boredom line. (“I think Tony has offered an excellent answer and a proper description of the humanizing you persist in presenting.”) For vanity you substitute “proud” and “want the credit”. Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?
TONY quoting dhw: "The idea of a spectacle does not exclude love, and I can well believe that your God might for instance love humans who worship him, but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
I can’t remember the context of this comment, but David is constantly telling us that we can only guess at your God’s nature through his works, and so of course the spectacle allows for this interpretation!
DHW... "Not “just” bored. Bored. Now please tell me why [boredom] is frivolous or capricious, or more trivial than the desire to grow and develop by ending his isolation (your hypothesis).
TONY: Doing something because your bored is like saying, "I have nothing better to do, so why not.." It doesn't imply any larger motive than simply alleviation of boredom. By definition that is frivolous. It does not imply growth, it does not imply purpose, other than He's "bored and lonely".
In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".
You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?
TONY (later): For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.
Then why all this opposition to the idea? If he could create one offspring to end the boredom of isolation, why shouldn’t he have created the whole spectacle of life for the same reason? And I really don’t see why you insist that Christ was his only direct creation, especially when Genesis tell us that it was God who dunnit!
TONY: Further, it implies that when he grows bored with us, we will just get tossed aside too, because He is indifferent to the suffering of others that he allowed for his own 'selfish amusement'. […]
It may be so. If he exists, I certainly hope it isn’t. But you are confusing speculation with belief, and I can’t help wondering if your comments don’t link up with your desire for “assured expectation of things not beheld”. The concept of an indifferent or even sadistic God is the worst of nightmares. But it is possible. Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART TWO
"DHW (to David) : So your God is capable of creating instant speciation, but for some reason he does NOT instantly create the one species he actually wants to create."
TONY: (This is the 'he didn't do it my way' argument.)
I am attacking David’s idea that his God only wanted to create one species (Homo sapiens), which incidentally you have also opposed. If you can explain the logic of the above, then please do so.
TONY: No, by "set us straight"you say things like;
"dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. (TONY: he didn't do it my way) All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us?"
Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.
TONY: And:
"DHW [to David]: Why not acknowledge the possibility (which is all it can be) that what we have IS God’s goal – namely, a massive free-for-all, full of nice and nasty, good and evil, joy and sadness, birth and death, extinction and survival?..so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show."
TONY: As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?
I have already given my reasons for neither believing nor disbelieving in him. But when you claim that he “wants credit” for his work, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speculate on possible reasons why he remains hidden. In the passage above, I describe the spectacle, and I suggest this is what he wanted. Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.
TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.
TONY: Let me ask a simple question. Have you spent as much time researching ANY supposedly 'holy text' compared to the time and energy you have devoted to the study science or philosophy?
Probably not. I was made to study the Old Testament in my Jewish youth, and was appalled by some of God’s actions. Later I read the New Testament for myself, and preferred its emphasis on love rather than fear. I was never a scientist (David has been by far the best of my science teachers!), have merely dabbled in philosophy, and after a period of religious turmoil, settled into calm agnosticism around my mid twenties. However, the fascination remained and remains. Dawkins’ unbalanced views in The God Delusion were what sparked the idea for my agnostic “guide” and for this website, which has enabled me to broaden my knowledge through good folk like David and yourself, but not to make the irrational leap of faith you would both like to see.
TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?
I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.
DAVID: But you always downgrade the importance of my balance of nature statements.
Originally you tried to use it to bolster your anthropocentrism. Nowadays most of your statements show the self-evident fact that if there is a change in the balance of nature, the balance of nature changes (e.g. by the effects of human interference, or the impact of natural disasters). Nothing to do with your anthropocentrism or your God’s purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 23, 2018, 15:59 (2036 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: PART TWO
TONY: No, by "set us straight"you say things like;
"dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. (TONY: he didn't do it my way) All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us?"
dhw: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.
My belief is not based on God's pattern of thought. Where did that idea come from?
TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?
dhw: I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.
Evolution by definition must have advances and discards. How else would it advance? Can you imagine an Earth filled with every organisms still existing from day one of origin of life? Would nature be balanced in that state?
DAVID: But you always downgrade the importance of my balance of nature statements.dhw: Originally you tried to use it to bolster your anthropocentrism. Nowadays most of your statements show the self-evident fact that if there is a change in the balance of nature, the balance of nature changes (e.g. by the effects of human interference, or the impact of natural disasters). Nothing to do with your anthropocentrism or your God’s purpose.
Balance of nature forms the Earth as well as living beings. It supports the ability to evolve from single cells to us. That is my point. We are the result of evolution.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 18:40 (2035 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO
Sorry for all the deletions... it's the 5500 character count limit..
DHW: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.
Ok, first, when have I said he wanted/needed to prove himself to you? From a biblical perspective, there are millions of non-material creatures that KNOW he exists. He doesn't need to PROVE he exists. Instead, he has been slandered and needs to vindicate his name which has been tarnished by the slander. The logic is, the creatures were created, performed a purpose, and then were allowed to perish in their own due time. Why does our opinion of what is weird matter in the slightest? Further, who are we to judge his methods? Understand them, certainly, but judge them? I'm reminded of the book of Job 38, which is essentially God verbally spanking Job for the same type of arguments (made in the beginning of ch 37)
TONY: As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?
DHW: I have already given my reasons for neither believing nor disbelieving in him. But when you claim that he “wants credit” for his work, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speculate on possible reasons why he remains hidden. In the passage above, I describe the spectacle, and I suggest this is what he wanted. Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.
Because a beeline to humanity would have produced a world unfit to support our living.
TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
DHW: If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.
If I break U.S. law, and claim to be doing it in the name of the government, is the fault the government's, or mine? I'm pretty sure those horrific acts you mentioned all violate the statutes laid out in Exodus 20. Stop blaming the lawmaker for the acts of the criminal.
DHW:I was made to study the Old Testament in my Jewish youth, and was appalled by some of God’s actions. Later I read the New Testament for myself, and preferred its emphasis on love rather than fear. I was never a scientist (David has been by far the best of my science teachers!), have merely dabbled in philosophy, and after a period of religious turmoil, settled into calm agnosticism around my mid twenties. However, the fascination remained and remains. Dawkins’ unbalanced views in The God Delusion were what sparked the idea for my agnostic “guide” and for this website, which has enabled me to broaden my knowledge through good folk like David and yourself, but not to make the irrational leap of faith you would both like to see.
David is indeed a wonderful science teacher, and I am humbled that you learn from me as well. Yet, what I largely see are the arguments that I have presented in some form or fashion. "He didn't do it my way" or "Why doesn't he just answer the questions directly?" Some variation on that theme. Take some time one day when you have it, to read the book of Job. The man lost everything, and then Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar come along, making mostly the same claims you do, or those of the people that blame God for their suffering. But it is Elihu that puts things in perspective, and Jehovah that ask the questions that matter, with no small amount of snark.
TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?DHW: I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.
Because we live in a purpose driven universe. All the mechanisms and organisms that exist exist for a purpose. They do something meaningful! Does such purpose driven creation strike you as the product of boredom, indifference, or just for amusement? Would a designer that is indifferent to suffering build in so many mechanisms for healing, pleasure, joy, love, pride, etc.? If he is indifferent to suffering, why bother allowing us pleasure at all?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 23, 2018, 19:05 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
PART TWO
Sorry for all the deletions... it's the 5500 character count limit..
DHW: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.
Tony: Ok, first, when have I said he wanted/needed to prove himself to you? From a biblical perspective, there are millions of non-material creatures that KNOW he exists. He doesn't need to PROVE he exists. Instead, he has been slandered and needs to vindicate his name which has been tarnished by the slander. The logic is, the creatures were created, performed a purpose, and then were allowed to perish in their own due time. Why does our opinion of what is weird matter in the slightest? Further, who are we to judge his methods? Understand them, certainly, but judge them? I'm reminded of the book of Job 38, which is essentially God verbally spanking Job for the same type of arguments (made in the beginning of ch 37)
TONY: As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?
DHW: I have already given my reasons for neither believing nor disbelieving in him. But when you claim that he “wants credit” for his work, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speculate on possible reasons why he remains hidden. In the passage above, I describe the spectacle, and I suggest this is what he wanted. Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.
Tony: Because a beeline to humanity would have produced a world unfit to support our living.
Very logical
TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
DHW: If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.
Tony:If I break U.S. law, and claim to be doing it in the name of the government, is the fault the government's, or mine? I'm pretty sure those horrific acts you mentioned all violate the statutes laid out in Exodus 20. Stop blaming the lawmaker for the acts of the criminal.
DHW:I was made to study the Old Testament in my Jewish youth, and was appalled by some of God’s actions. Later I read the New Testament for myself, and preferred its emphasis on love rather than fear. I was never a scientist (David has been by far the best of my science teachers!), have merely dabbled in philosophy, and after a period of religious turmoil, settled into calm agnosticism around my mid twenties. However, the fascination remained and remains. Dawkins’ unbalanced views in The God Delusion were what sparked the idea for my agnostic “guide” and for this website, which has enabled me to broaden my knowledge through good folk like David and yourself, but not to make the irrational leap of faith you would both like to see.
Tony: David is indeed a wonderful science teacher, and I am humbled that you learn from me as well. Yet, what I largely see are the arguments that I have presented in some form or fashion. "He didn't do it my way" or "Why doesn't he just answer the questions directly?" Some variation on that theme. Take some time one day when you have it, to read the book of Job. The man lost everything, and then Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar come along, making mostly the same claims you do, or those of the people that blame God for their suffering. But it is Elihu that puts things in perspective, and Jehovah that ask the questions that matter, with no small amount of snark.
Thank you.
TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?DHW: I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.
Tony: Because we live in a purpose driven universe. All the mechanisms and organisms that exist exist for a purpose. They do something meaningful! Does such purpose driven creation strike you as the product of boredom, indifference, or just for amusement? Would a designer that is indifferent to suffering build in so many mechanisms for healing, pleasure, joy, love, pride, etc.? If he is indifferent to suffering, why bother allowing us pleasure at all?
Agreed.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 23, 2018, 15:44 (2036 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE
dhw: For the sake of brevity and coherence, I shall juxtapose some of the entries:
DAVID: Yes, who knows?! Your problem is ours. None of us 'know' if God exists. We cannot 'know'. That is where faith has to appear. Belief in Him for me is a logical conclusion. You cannot reach that result for some innate reason, which I believe is that you want absolute truth.
dhw: Of course we would all like to have “absolute truth”, and of course we can’t have it, but faith does not “have to appear”. The “innate reason” why I cannot share your logical conclusion is that it is no more and no less logical than the opposite conclusion.
I understand you cannot reach 'faith'. Logic can lead to faith for some of us.
dhw: You have ignored the context. David constantly complains that in searching for purpose, I humanize his God, and so he rejects the boredom line. (“I think Tony has offered an excellent answer and a proper description of the humanizing you persist in presenting.”) For vanity you substitute “proud” and “want the credit”. Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?TONY quoting dhw: "The idea of a spectacle does not exclude love, and I can well believe that your God might for instance love humans who worship him, but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
dhw: I can’t remember the context of this comment, but David is constantly telling us that we can only guess at your God’s nature through his works, and so of course the spectacle allows for this interpretation!
Spectacle for entertainment is humanizing.
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?
You have again imagined God from a human point of view: "Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age." Comparing God to us!
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY quoting dhw: "The idea of a spectacle does not exclude love, and I can well believe that your God might for instance love humans who worship him, but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
dhw: I can’t remember the context of this comment, but David is constantly telling us that we can only guess at your God’s nature through his works, and so of course the spectacle allows for this interpretation!
DAVID: Spectacle for entertainment is humanizing.
So is Tony’s “proud and wanting credit”, so is your God wanting to prove himself, wanting a relationship, and your earlier support for the idea of a spectacle. What’s wrong with that? Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".
dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?
DAVID: You have again imagined God from a human point of view: "Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age." Comparing God to us!
See above for your insistence that you know how God doesn’t think, but here I am replying to Tony’s arguments. He claims that although his God’s first creation may have been the result of boredom, generally relief from boredom and isolation is frivolous. It is not.
dhw to Tony:): I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.
DAVID: My belief is not based on God's pattern of thought. Where did that idea come from?
When I point out the logical fallacies in your hypotheses, you claim that God doesn’t think like humans. As if you knew.
dhw: I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.
DAVID: Evolution by definition must have advances and discards. How else would it advance? Can you imagine an Earth filled with every organisms still existing from day one of origin of life? Would nature be balanced in that state?
Of course it would be balanced. But then I agree you would not have evolution, which in my view does depend on an ever changing balance. What is your point?
DAVID: But you always downgrade the importance of my balance of nature statements.
dhw: Originally you tried to use it to bolster your anthropocentrism. Nowadays most of your statements show the self-evident fact that if there is a change in the balance of nature, the balance of nature changes (e.g. by the effects of human interference, or the impact of natural disasters). Nothing to do with your anthropocentrism or your God’s purpose.
DAVID: Balance of nature forms the Earth as well as living beings. It supports the ability to evolve from single cells to us. That is my point. We are the result of evolution.
It is the changing balance of nature that I see as triggering evolution and also resulting from evolution. You don’t need to tell me that we are the result of evolution, since that is a belief we share.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 24, 2018, 23:24 (2034 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Spectacle for entertainment is humanizing.
dhw: So is Tony’s “proud and wanting credit”, so is your God wanting to prove himself, wanting a relationship, and your earlier support for the idea of a spectacle. What’s wrong with that? Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?DAVID: You have again imagined God from a human point of view: "Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age." Comparing God to us!
Tony: See above for your insistence that you know how God doesn’t think, but here I am replying to Tony’s arguments. He claims that although his God’s first creation may have been the result of boredom, generally relief from boredom and isolation is frivolous. It is not.
Tony and I have our different views.
dhw to Tony:): I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.DAVID: My belief is not based on God's pattern of thought. Where did that idea come from?
dhw: When I point out the logical fallacies in your hypotheses, you claim that God doesn’t think like humans. As if you knew.
Answered above. He is not at our level of thought
DAVID: Evolution by definition must have advances and discards. How else would it advance? Can you imagine an Earth filled with every organisms still existing from day one of origin of life? Would nature be balanced in that state?dhw: Of course it would be balanced. But then I agree you would not have evolution, which in my view does depend on an ever changing balance. What is your point?
Evolution involves of loss of species as you agree. 99% gone means nothing as a rebuttal.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 18:01 (2035 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE
DHW: Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?
David is the one with issues about assigning human qualities to God. If we are made in his image, I have no real issue with it other than to say his ways are not our ways, they are higher than are ways. As for the difference, if you did something, then taking credit for it, even wanting the credit for it, is simply wanting the truth to be known. Would you want people believing, and spreading, lies about you? In our society we view that as so vile that we have laws against it and punishment for it.
TONY quoting dhw: ".. but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
DHW:... we can only guess at your God’s nature through his works, and so of course the spectacle allows for this interpretation!
You stated that you did not say such things, I was merely illustrating that you do, in fact, say such things. Still why would someone whose primary quality was selfish indifference and indifference to suffering bother creating so much beauty, and give us the capacity to enjoy it?
DHW: In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
I don't think he, being a sentient living being(of a sort), would willingly inflict pain upon himself. I think he did something good that brought joy, and something happened that screwed it up in such a way that, in a sense, his hands were tied for a while. Saying that he created pain for his own experience is like saying a person without cancer would suck down a full course of chemotherapy drugs just for kicks. Yes, I agree that loneliness might have been the initial motivation to start creating. The counter question, though is, once he had created more than one, why create more? Your bored and lonely idea breaks down once there are more than a few entities in existence. And, it would logically be far easier to create creatures of pure energy like himself, so why make the jump to the material world in a mostly empty universe if he was just bored and lonely.
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be
pretty unbearable. Can't you?
Yes, which is why I stated that I agreed with that as first cause, but not as an ongoing cause.
TONY (later): For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.DHW: Then why all this opposition to the idea? If he could create one offspring to end the boredom of isolation, why shouldn’t he have created the whole spectacle of life for the same reason? And I really don’t see why you insist that Christ was his only direct creation, especially when Genesis tell us that it was God who dunnit!
Because you criticize what you have not bothered to study or learn. In reference to Christ:
Col 1:15-17 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…
John 1:2-3 He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Prov 8:23 He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
TONY: Further, it implies that when he grows bored with us, we will just get tossed aside too, because He is indifferent to the suffering of others that he allowed for his own 'selfish amusement'. […]DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 23, 2018, 18:56 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
PART ONE
DHW: Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?
dhw: David is the one with issues about assigning human qualities to God. If we are made in his image, I have no real issue with it other than to say his ways are not our ways, they are higher than are ways. As for the difference, if you did something, then taking credit for it, even wanting the credit for it, is simply wanting the truth to be known. Would you want people believing, and spreading, lies about you? In our society we view that as so vile that we have laws against it and punishment for it.
That is all I am saying. His ways are beyond ours, and applying human reasons and emotions is not correct.
DHW: In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
Tony: I don't think he, being a sentient living being(of a sort), would willingly inflict pain upon himself. I think he did something good that brought joy, and something happened that screwed it up in such a way that, in a sense, his hands were tied for a while. Saying that he created pain for his own experience is like saying a person without cancer would suck down a full course of chemotherapy drugs just for kicks.
The reason for much of the evil and pain is human free will God gave to us. Illness and other problems can be solved/ are being solved, over time with the brain He gave us.
>
DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
Tony: Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
But dhw is correct. We have the problems of illness and cancer but a way to solve the problem with use of our brain.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 19:56 (2035 days ago) @ David Turell
PART ONE
DHW: Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?
Tony: David is the one with issues about assigning human qualities to God. If we are made in his image, I have no real issue with it other than to say his ways are not our ways, they are higher than are ways. As for the difference, if you did something, then taking credit for it, even wanting the credit for it, is simply wanting the truth to be known. Would you want people believing, and spreading, lies about you? In our society we view that as so vile that we have laws against it and punishment for it.
David: That is all I am saying. His ways are beyond ours, and applying human reasons and emotions is not correct.
Just correcting the quote attribution above. Those were my words, not DHW's. :)
DHW: In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
Tony: I don't think he, being a sentient living being(of a sort), would willingly inflict pain upon himself. I think he did something good that brought joy, and something happened that screwed it up in such a way that, in a sense, his hands were tied for a while. Saying that he created pain for his own experience is like saying a person without cancer would suck down a full course of chemotherapy drugs just for kicks.
David: The reason for much of the evil and pain is human free will God gave to us. Illness and other problems can be solved/ are being solved, over time with the brain He gave us.
I don't disagree, and as a parent, I understand how personally painful and frustrating it can be to watch your children exercise free will in a manner you know will hurt them long term, and them being unwilling to listen.
DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
Tony: Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
David: But dhw is correct. We have the problems of illness and cancer but a way to solve the problem with use of our brain.
No one has disagreed about the existence of pain. I do disagree with one statement of DHW's here that I didn't address. I think it is the combination of Faith AND Reason that allow for the belief in a loving God. Faith allows you to believe he exists, reason shows where the break downs are occurring and assign blame and motives accurately. DHW's reasoning is flawed because he blames the lawmaker for the criminals.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 23, 2018, 21:09 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
PART ONE
DHW: Why is being proud and wanting credit less human than being bored with isolation?
Tony: David is the one with issues about assigning human qualities to God. If we are made in his image, I have no real issue with it other than to say his ways are not our ways, they are higher than are ways. As for the difference, if you did something, then taking credit for it, even wanting the credit for it, is simply wanting the truth to be known. Would you want people believing, and spreading, lies about you? In our society we view that as so vile that we have laws against it and punishment for it.
David: That is all I am saying. His ways are beyond ours, and applying human reasons and emotions is not correct.
Tony: Just correcting the quote attribution above. Those were my words, not DHW's. :)
Thank you.
DHW: In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
Tony: I don't think he, being a sentient living being(of a sort), would willingly inflict pain upon himself. I think he did something good that brought joy, and something happened that screwed it up in such a way that, in a sense, his hands were tied for a while. Saying that he created pain for his own experience is like saying a person without cancer would suck down a full course of chemotherapy drugs just for kicks.
David: The reason for much of the evil and pain is human free will God gave to us. Illness and other problems can be solved/ are being solved, over time with the brain He gave us.
I don't disagree, and as a parent, I understand how personally painful and frustrating it can be to watch your children exercise free will in a manner you know will hurt them long term, and them being unwilling to listen.
DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
Tony: Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
David: But dhw is correct. We have the problems of illness and cancer but a way to solve the problem with use of our brain.
Tony: No one has disagreed about the existence of pain. I do disagree with one statement of DHW's here that I didn't address. I think it is the combination of Faith AND Reason that allow for the belief in a loving God. Faith allows you to believe he exists, reason shows where the break downs are occurring and assign blame and motives accurately. DHW's reasoning is flawed because he blames the lawmaker for the criminals.
Fair enough.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART ONE
TONY: David is the one with issues about assigning human qualities to God. If we are made in his image, I have no real issue with it other than to say his ways are not our ways, they are higher than are ways.
The three-way discussion can get rather confusing. What is the difference between boredom and higher boredom?
TONY: Would you want people believing, and spreading lies about you?
I accept David’s view that if God exists, we can only guess at his nature through his works. The Bible (especially the OT, and including Job) veers between terrifying and loving. How do you know the truth?
TONY quoting dhw: ".. but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering."
DHW:... we can only guess at your God’s nature through his works, and so of course the spectacle allows for this interpretation!
TONY: You stated that you did not say such things, I was merely illustrating that you do, in fact, say such things.
Your manufactured statement “God didn’t do it in a way I like, so he must be egotistical (arrogant, less powerful…)” is very different from saying a hypothesis allows for selfishness and indifference. Similarly, I did not say God was vain, but challenged David’s statement by asking if he thought his God was that humanly vain.
DHW: In order (= purpose) to relieve his boredom he creates a spectacle that enables him to grow and develop. It might help us, though, if you explain how he grows and develops. Could it be that he extends his own experience by creating a world full of love and hate, beauty and ugliness, joy and pain?
TONY: I don't think he, being a sentient living being(of a sort), would willingly inflict pain upon himself. I think he did something good that brought joy, and something happened that screwed it up in such a way that, in a sense, his hands were tied for a while.
Who knows? You still haven’t explained how he grows and develops.
TONY: Yes, I agree that loneliness might have been the initial motivation to start creating. The counter question, though is, once he had created more than one, why create more? Your bored and lonely idea breaks down once there are more than a few entities in existence.
Of course it doesn’t break down! The more entities there are, the more interesting the spectacle becomes.
TONY: And, it would logically be far easier to create creatures of pure energy like himself, so why make the jump to the material world in a mostly empty universe if he was just bored and lonely.
Don’t you find the material world interesting, with its vast variety of life forms, its ever changing nature, the extraordinary products of human consciousness? Anyway, do tell us why you think he created material life.
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".
dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be pretty unbearable. Can't you?
TONY: Yes, which is why I stated that I agreed with that as first cause, but not as an ongoing cause.
Why do you think eternity wouldn’t require an ongoing process to prevent the return of boring isolation?
DHW: And I really don’t see why you insist that Christ was his only direct creation, especially when Genesis tell us that it was God who dunnit!
Because you criticize what you have not bothered to study or learn. In reference to Christ:
Col 1:15-17 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for
Him etc. (No room!).
Why don’t you quote Genesis 1 and 2? No mention there of the Son. Plenty of God made this and that.
DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
PART TWO
DHW: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself.
TONY: Ok, first, when have I said he wanted/needed to prove himself to you?
You quoted my response to David. I was not complaining that your God didn’t do it my way, but was challenging David’s logic.
TONY: From a biblical perspective, there are millions of non-material creatures that KNOW he exists.
What evidence do you have that these creatures exist?
TONY: He doesn't need to PROVE he exists. Instead, he has been slandered and needs to vindicate his name which has been tarnished by the slander.
So he made all these creatures, including those that preceded humans by a few thousand million years, in order to vindicate his name, which had been slandered by...humans?
TONY: The logic is, the creatures were created, performed a purpose, and then were allowed to perish in their own due time. Why does our opinion of what is weird matter in the slightest? Further, who are we to judge his methods? Understand them, certainly, but judge them?
We are talking about his purpose for creating life. You agree that initially it could have been boredom. Now it’s self-vindication. There is no judgement involved here, only the search for logical explanations.
DHW: Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.
TONY: Because a beeline to humanity would have produced a world unfit to support our living.
Fair enough, but that was a reference to David’s illogical coupling of God’s powers with his anthropocentrism. My point was the great free-for-all of the higgledy-piggledy bush which your God created (though now you say he didn’t) to relieve his boredom and isolation.
TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.
DHW: If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.
TONY: […] Stop blaming the lawmaker for the acts of the criminal. (Later: DHW's reasoning is flawed because he blames the lawmaker for the criminals.)
I am not blaming the law-maker! I don’t even know if he exists! I am pointing out that faith in religion also leads to kicks in the gonads. Do you deny it?
TONY: Yet, what I largely see are the arguments that I have presented in some form or fashion. "He didn't do it my way" or "Why doesn't he just answer the questions directly?" Some variation on that theme.
You totally misunderstand the arguments. I keep challenging the logic of David’s hypotheses, but I also offer hypotheses of my own: his “way” (if he exists) was to create an ever changing bush of life to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation; he doesn’t answer questions directly because he is watching the spectacle, not directing it. I invite you to challenge the logic of the hypothesis, just as I challenge your hypotheses and David’s.
TONY: Would a designer that is indifferent to suffering build in so many mechanisms for healing, pleasure, joy, love, pride, etc.? If he is indifferent to suffering, why bother allowing us pleasure at all?
First of all, you say it was not your God who did all this, but Christ and his spiritual offspring. Secondly, I see that the mechanism has created a mixture of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, and so it is not unreasonable to argue that, if your God exists, he wanted to design a mechanism which would create a mixture of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. If you agree that the hypothesis is reasonable, it’s up to you what conclusions you extrapolate about his nature. If I go to the theatre to relieve the boredom of my isolation, I get very different feelings from watching a comedy and watching a tragedy. But I learn something from both. Perhaps that‘s how your God “grows and develops”, but you have not yet told us what you think this process entails.
xxxxxxxx
This will be my last post until Wednesday at the earliest.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 24, 2018, 21:43 (2034 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Monday, September 24, 2018, 21:53
Ok, so the quotes are killing the word count. Unless I mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them. Also, unless I am mistaken, you keep asking for evidence of things that both David and myself have repeatedly acknowledged have to be taken on faith. Obviously, and by definition, no such proof can be given.
Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else. I am assuming you are familiar with the concept of Architect, Foreman, and Construction Crew. If not, then we really have no common language to speak from, because you work on the assumption that one entity did it all, despite what I have actually said.
As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.
The concept of one entity becoming self-aware is not insignificant. The concept of one entity becoming aware of the fact that it is alone is also not insignificant, particularly given that it had no frame of reference to make that realization from. This is a point which I think you kind of gloss over, defining it as boredom and isolation. I agreed, in a very limited context, in that once this entity became aware of the fact that it was alone, it makes sense that it would seek to end that isolation. However, the novelty of having even one other organism would likely have been sufficiently interesting enough for an extended period of time to curb any 'boredom', particularly as these two organisms learned about each other, most likely the elder teaching the younger until they reached a point where more entities were needed in order to continue growing their consciousness. Doesn't the fact that even single-celled organisms seek out some form of community speak to you of the importance of it? How could a designer that did not recognize that importance plan for it, and design the mechanisms to support it into his designs.
As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. We are designed with both the carrot and the stick within us at a chemical level, yet there are four carrots (endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin) and one stick(cortisol). Why would an god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
As for how God grows, in my limited human ability to conceptualize the magnitude of such things, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence. Though I strongly suspect a few billion years has made him far better at it than we will ever be capable of imagining.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 24, 2018, 23:46 (2034 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Ok, so the quotes are killing the word count. Unless I mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them. Also, unless I am mistaken, you keep asking for evidence of things that both David and myself have repeatedly acknowledged have to be taken on faith. Obviously, and by definition, no such proof can be given.
Kill the unnecessary quotes to have room for reply. That is what I do.
dhw: Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else. I am assuming you are familiar with the concept of Architect, Foreman, and Construction Crew. If not, then we really have no common language to speak from, because you work on the assumption that one entity did it all, despite what I have actually said.As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.
The concept of one entity becoming self-aware is not insignificant. The concept of one entity becoming aware of the fact that it is alone is also not insignificant, particularly given that it had no frame of reference to make that realization from. This is a point which I think you kind of gloss over, defining it as boredom and isolation. I agreed, in a very limited context, in that once this entity became aware of the fact that it was alone, it makes sense that it would seek to end that isolation. However, the novelty of having even one other organism would likely have been sufficiently interesting enough for an extended period of time to curb any 'boredom', particularly as these two organisms learned about each other, most likely the elder teaching the younger until they reached a point where more entities were needed in order to continue growing their consciousness. Doesn't the fact that even single-celled organisms seek out some form of community speak to you of the importance of it? How could a designer that did not recognize that importance plan for it, and design the mechanisms to support it into his designs.
As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. We are designed with both the carrot and the stick within us at a chemical level, yet there are four carrots (endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin) and one stick(cortisol). Why would an god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
As for how God grows, in my limited human ability to conceptualize the magnitude of such things, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence. Though I strongly suspect a few billion years has made him far better at it than we will ever be capable of imagining.
I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 25, 2018, 00:01 (2034 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Ok, so the quotes are killing the word count. Unless I mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them. Also, unless I am mistaken, you keep asking for evidence of things that both David and myself have repeatedly acknowledged have to be taken on faith. Obviously, and by definition, no such proof can be given.
Kill the unnecessary quotes to have room for reply. That is what I do.
dhw: Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else. I am assuming you are familiar with the concept of Architect, Foreman, and Construction Crew. If not, then we really have no common language to speak from, because you work on the assumption that one entity did it all, despite what I have actually said.As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.
The concept of one entity becoming self-aware is not insignificant. The concept of one entity becoming aware of the fact that it is alone is also not insignificant, particularly given that it had no frame of reference to make that realization from. This is a point which I think you kind of gloss over, defining it as boredom and isolation. I agreed, in a very limited context, in that once this entity became aware of the fact that it was alone, it makes sense that it would seek to end that isolation. However, the novelty of having even one other organism would likely have been sufficiently interesting enough for an extended period of time to curb any 'boredom', particularly as these two organisms learned about each other, most likely the elder teaching the younger until they reached a point where more entities were needed in order to continue growing their consciousness. Doesn't the fact that even single-celled organisms seek out some form of community speak to you of the importance of it? How could a designer that did not recognize that importance plan for it, and design the mechanisms to support it into his designs.
As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. We are designed with both the carrot and the stick within us at a chemical level, yet there are four carrots (endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin) and one stick(cortisol). Why would an god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
As for how God grows, in my limited human ability to conceptualize the magnitude of such things, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence. Though I strongly suspect a few billion years has made him far better at it than we will ever be capable of imagining.
David: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.
I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: Unless I am mistaken, you are pretty much saying that all of the negative connotations of your statements are just me misunderstanding them.
You take them out of context. I do not say God is vain or should have done it my way or is to blame for the violent acts of fundamentalists. I challenge statements to the effect that he wants to prove himself, that the whole of evolution was geared to the production of Homo sapiens, that you need faith to lead a good life.
TONY: Also, unless I am mistaken, you keep asking for evidence of things that both David and myself have repeatedly acknowledged have to be taken on faith.
Of course proof can’t be given for ANY of the hypotheses, including my own (which is not a belief), for which you and David demand proof. Hence my agnosticism.
TONY: Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement on 16 September that “His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God.” I thought Genesis told us your God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and man, and I don’t recall any mention of the son in that account, or of a construction crew.
TONY: As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.
You have accepted boredom as a possible starting point, I regard life is hugely significant, I have never downgraded nature’s complexity, and theories concerning your God’s purposes do not downplay anything – they are hypothetical explanations, not judgements.
TONY: [...] The concept of one entity becoming aware of the fact that it is alone is also not insignificant, particularly given that it had no frame of reference to make that realization from. This is a point which I think you kind of gloss over, defining it as boredom and isolation.
Did I say it was insignificant? I don’t define anything as boredom and isolation! Isolation is what your God would become aware of, and boredom would be the consequence. You go on to claim that one other organism would initially “curb any boredom”, but then more would be needed. I agree. Hence the proliferation of life forms evolving from the single cell, and I suggest that your God (if he exists) would have designed the mechanisms that led to all forms of community.
TONY: As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. […] Why would a god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
Each life continues for a limited period; each organism is capable of different responses and behaviours. If your God exists, I suggest this is what he WANTED to create, and his motive was to provide a spectacle to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. This can also entail learning, as say below. I don’t know why you feel this has no explanatory power.
TONY: As for how God grows, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence.
Sounds good to me, except “sphere of influence”. I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.
DAVID: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.
TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. […] Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.
Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.
dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 19:35 (2032 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. […] Why would a god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
dhw: Each life continues for a limited period; each organism is capable of different responses and behaviours. If your God exists, I suggest this is what he WANTED to create, and his motive was to provide a spectacle to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. This can also entail learning, as say below. I don’t know why you feel this has no explanatory power.
TONY: As for how God grows, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence.
dhw: Sounds good to me, except “sphere of influence”. I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.
DAVID: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.
TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
dhw: And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. […] Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.
dhw: Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.
Evolution is a guide to purpose. Look at what has appeared against all odds, humans! The complexity of evolution and life require as designer.
dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.
Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. […] Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.
dhw: Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.
DAVID: Evolution is a guide to purpose. Look at what has appeared against all odds, humans! The complexity of evolution and life require as designer.
All life appeared against the odds, and of course if God exists he will have had a purpose. And I have conceded that the complexities suggest design, but not necessarily one designer (atheistic panpsychist hypothesis), and your designer is no less of a mystery than the origin and complexities of life.
dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 27, 2018, 16:39 (2032 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: ..it requires faith to believe in...God.
David(Not Tony): Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring.
dhw: Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.
DAVID: Evolution is a guide to purpose. Look at what has appeared against all odds, humans!
DHW: All life appeared against the odds, and of course if God exists he will have had a purpose. And I have conceded that the complexities suggest design, but not necessarily one designer (atheistic panpsychist hypothesis), and your designer is no less of a mystery than the origin and complexities of life.
dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
DHW: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
- 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
- 2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
- Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
- The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
- Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
- A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
- Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
- 3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 19:09 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
DHW: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
Tony: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
- 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
Agree
Tony:[*]2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
- Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
Agree
Tony: [*]The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
Agree
Tony:[*]Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
Agree
Tony [*]A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
Agree
Tony: [/list]
[*]3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
Agree
[/list]
Tony: Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
You have simply supported my view and Adler's that God is a person like no other person and we cannot fully appreciate that difference from us..
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 27, 2018, 19:38 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
DHW: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
Tony: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
- 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
Agree
Tony:[*]2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
- Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
Agree
Tony: [*]The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
Agree
Tony:[*]Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
Agree
Tony [*]A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
Agree
Tony: [/list]
[*]3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
Agree
[/list]
Tony: Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
You have simply supported my view and Adler's that God is a person like no other person and we cannot fully appreciate that difference from us..
I just want a list of agreed points that we can refer back to, add to, and build upon.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 23:42 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
DHW: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
Tony: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
- 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
David: Agree
Tony:[*]2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
- Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
David: Agree
Tony: [*]The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
David: Agree
Tony:[*]Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
David: Agree
Tony [*]A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
David: Agree
Tony: [/list]
[*]3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
David: Agree
[/list]
Tony: Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
David: You have simply supported my view and Adler's that God is a person like no other person and we cannot fully appreciate that difference from us..
Tony: I just want a list of agreed points that we can refer back to, add to, and build upon.
I've agreed to your points.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
• 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
• 2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:
a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
b) The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
c) Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
d) A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
• 3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
I’ve inserted a, b, c etc. for ease of reference. Many thanks for this attempt to systematize the discussion. Firstly, 1 and 2 (d) encapsulate my own dilemma. In all respects, a designer would have to be superior to what he designs, and so if the complexity of existence implies design, the even greater complexity of the mind that does the designing also implies design. So who designed the designer? The great philosophical fob-off is “first cause”, as if that explained anything. It requires as much faith to believe in an “always there” mind as to believe in the chance appearance and gradual evolution of minds out of ever changing combinations of matter.
2 (a) This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before…Maybe. David thinks so (see below). Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.
2 (c) Yes indeed, and if your God exists, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that he did have a motive. That is what we keep discussing: not whether he had a motive, but what it might have been. But the guessed-at motive also entails guessing at his nature, because we are trying to read his mind. So we look at his works, or at what different people have written about him, and we can draw any number of conclusions.
DAVID: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in the past. […] As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
Yes, we can only guess. Yes, your imagined God would have to be eternal, unless he himself was designed. We’ve argued ad nauseam over “the” purpose of creating thinking humans, as you agree he may have had other purposes (including proving himself and even providing himself with a spectacle), and although you don’t like guessing at his purpose for creating thinking humans, you came up with his wish to have a relationship with us (while remaining hidden). Why would he want to have a relationship with us?
TONY: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
You wrote: “For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.” I didn’t reword anything. However, you limited it to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only direct creation – Jesus – and then argued that the relief of boredom/loneliness ended there, and afterwards he needed more entities to enable him to “grow”. My point, of course, is that “growing” would be the continuing antidote to boredom and isolation.
(I’ll leave the two of you to squabble over the meaning of your God’s names and the need for him to “grow”.)
DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.
dhw: So you agree that he was eternally isolated, but you don’t think he felt it. I must say I’m surprised that a God “who has our thoughts” didn’t have our thoughts. I suggest that, if he exists, he felt it and that’s why he created the universe and life. At least it’s a logical progression.
DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.
You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 28, 2018, 13:19 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Ok, so, where we all seem to agree:
• 1:The complexity of existence implies design.
• 2:Point one does not give clear indication of the nature or number of said designers or the method of creation, except in the following ways:a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).
b) The complexity, harmony, and homeostatic nature of the design implies prior planning(forward thinking/Imagination/Abstract Reasoning)
c) Defining a motive requires self-awareness.
d) A designer/creator can not create a design which he/she/they do not have the resources to create, therefore, the creation is always inferior to the creator.
• 3:Because of the 'frame of reference' requirement, must have a mind, even if it is dissimilar in terms of scale to our own.
Is that correct so far? Feel free to add/edit. It would be nice to have a groundwork that we all agree on so we stop arguing the same tired points.
DHW... Firstly, 1 and 2 (d) encapsulate my own dilemma. In all respects, a designer would have to be superior to what he designs, and so if the complexity of existence implies design, the even greater complexity of the mind that does the designing also implies design. So who designed the designer?... It requires as much faith to believe in an “always there” mind as to believe in the chance appearance and gradual evolution of minds out of ever changing combinations of matter.
Thanks for the structure changes. No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason. The answer this issue is not (necessarily) always there in terms of 'mind', rather it is that God's mind was not designed. This obviously does not answer where it came from, but it does stop the train from the endless 'what designed that' argument.
2 (a) This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before…Maybe. David thinks so (see below). Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.
Not really. If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from. 2A is also the reason I do not believe God created physical life first, nor do I believe he started off with masses of creations right off. It is, however, logical, that he created what he saw as his 'reflection' (son) first. Then, by observing the growth of his son, gained more insight that allowed for further creation.
DAVID: I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in the past..DHW: Yes, we can only guess. Yes, your imagined God would have to be eternal, unless he himself was designed. ..although you don’t like guessing at his purpose for creating thinking humans, you came up with his wish to have a relationship with us (while remaining hidden). Why would he want to have a relationship with us?
First, there is a reason, and we were told the reason. To care for his creation(i.e. planet earth and the animals that reside upon it.) Secondly, the better question is why wouldn't He want a relationship with creatures that he designed in his image? We were unique in all of physical creation, a fact that is beyond dispute according to evidence.
You wrote: “For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.” I didn’t reword anything. However, you limited it to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only direct creation – Jesus – and then argued that the relief of boredom/loneliness ended there, and afterwards he needed more entities to enable him to “grow”. My point, of course, is that “growing” would be the continuing antidote to boredom and isolation.
Go to the discussions prior to that. Heh.
DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.
I am not at all certain he could have understood loneliness, or that it was not good for things to be alone, without having felt it, and the OT implies he did indeed understand it. Notice that almost all sentient creatures are created with mates.
DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.DHW: You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?
Well, how about the logic of creation(i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfillment of God's logic.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason.
Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But since nobody knows it, the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation (an unknown mind called God, the creative genius of chance, the evolving intelligence of materials), you have to go beyond reason.
TONY: The answer this issue is not (necessarily) always there in terms of 'mind', rather it is that God's mind was not designed. This obviously does not answer where it came from, but it does stop the train from the endless 'what designed that' argument.
I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from. David’s answer is the usual philosophical cop-out:
DAVID: There is no designer of God if He is eternal, which is my view. First cause by definition is 'first'.
But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter. The fact that you disagree does not make “first cause” an argument for God.
TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)
dhw: This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before… Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.
TONY: Not really. If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.
This is what I use in my efforts to understand the workings of God’s mind (if he exists), but David rejects such an approach, and I’m not sure that you approve either. As for imagining eternity and infinity, there is nothing in my own life that can give me a frame of reference.
TONY: 2A is also the reason I do not believe God created physical life first, nor do I believe he started off with masses of creations right off. It is, however, logical, that he created what he saw as his 'reflection' (son) first. Then, by observing the growth of his son, gained more insight that allowed for further creation.
(I don’t believe either that he started with masses of creations, since I believe in evolution from single cells onwards!
) I see no connection between hypothetical spiritual offspring and physical life. How would watching his son grow “allow” him to create bacteria? And if your God could expand his experience (and presumably his range of relationships) through other spiritual beings, why do you think he bothered with the dodo (extinct) or the duckbilled platypus (extant)? Did they enable him to “grow”?
DHW (to David): Why would he want to have a relationship with us?
TONY: First, there is a reason, and we were told the reason. To care for his creation(i.e. planet earth and the animals that reside upon it.)
As above: why did he create the dodo and the duckbilled platypus for us to look after?
TONY: Secondly, the better question is why wouldn't He want a relationship with creatures that he designed in his image? We were unique in all of physical creation […]
My “why” concerned the reason for wanting a relationship. David’s answer is below. So ignoring the problem of the dodo and the platypus, here is a suggestion linked with your own beliefs: could it be that he designed us in his image because he got bored with the company of his fellow spirits, couldn’t use them to “grow” any more, and thought of creating a new experience – physical life, with all its unique pains and pleasures? I’m not asking you to believe it, but just to say if you think it is possible. (Please don’t forget your agreement that initially, for his very first offspring, my “idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on”.)
DAVID: The relationship comes from God creating consciousness in our brains which is a purposeful act to allow us to recognize Him. No other being knows of Him. No other explanation is needed.
So the relationship and the purpose of the relationship consists in God wanting us to recognize him. How very human of him. But all that great bush of organisms from bacteria to the duckbilled platypus and ourselves in order that we should say: “God did it”? I have to say it’s not my idea of a relationship, but then I’m only human.
DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.
dhw: You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?
DAVID: I'm sure his logic is like ours. But you cannot envision God except as a human being in thought.
If you’re sure he has our thoughts, and his logic is like ours, I don’t know why you object to my proposing that he has human-like thoughts and logic.
TONY: Well, how about the logic of creation (i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfilment of God’s logic?
Definition of what? If God exists, I would certainly accept that he used science and maths. But the logic we are discussing here concerns purpose, not means.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 29, 2018, 13:59 (2030 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason.
DHW: Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But .. the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation ... you have to go beyond reason.
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. We realize that you can not design that which you don't comprehend, and thus we can reason about what a designer must comprehend. We can see the good things, the variety, the beauty in our own minds and body and reason about the implications. As the Bible writer David said, "Oh Jehovah, we are fearfully and wonderfully made!" Inference is a type of reasoning.
TONY: ..God's mind was not designed. This obviously does not answer where it came from, but it does stop the train from the endless 'what designed that' argument.DHW: I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from.
See the bolded statement.
DHW: But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter.
How can impersonal and unconscious have a frame of reference for personality and consciousness?
TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)... If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.Dhw: This is what I use in my efforts to understand the workings of God’s mind (if he exists), but David rejects such an approach, and I’m not sure that you approve either. As for imagining eternity and infinity, there is nothing in my own life that can give me a frame of reference.
I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.
TONY: 2A is also the reason I do not believe God created physical life first, nor do I believe he started off with masses of creations right off. It is, however, logical, that he created what he saw as his 'reflection' (son) first. Then, by observing the growth of his son, gained more insight that allowed for further creation.DHW: (I don’t believe either that he started with masses of creations, since I believe in evolution from single cells onwards!
I think you are trying to connect unconnected ideas. Creating his son, and together with his son other heavenly creatures, would likely teach him a great deal. Creating the universe would also teach him a great deal. 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?
TONY: Secondly, the better question is why wouldn't He want a relationship with creatures that he designed in his image? We were unique in all of physical creation […]
DHW: My “why” concerned the reason for wanting a relationship... could it be that he designed us in his image because he got bored with the company of his fellow spirits, couldn’t use them to “grow” any more, and thought of creating a new experience – physical life, with all its unique pains and pleasures? I’m not asking you to believe it, but just to say if you think it is possible. (Please don’t forget your agreement that initially, for his very first offspring, my “idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on”.)
I do not think so. While 'anything is possible', if that were the way he is, why not just wipe the slate clean and start over after a rebellion?
DHW: If you’re sure he has our thoughts, and his logic is like ours, I don’t know why you object to my proposing that he has human-like thoughts and logic.
TONY: Well, how about the logic of creation (i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfilment of God’s logic?
DHW: Definition of what? If God exists, I would certainly accept that he used science and maths. But the logic we are discussing here concerns purpose, not means.
That is truth. To understand that, you have to look at something deeper, something you have generally refused to acknowledge: love.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, September 29, 2018, 15:23 (2030 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: No one denies that it takes faith to believe in that which you can not see. However, faith is based on reason.
DHW: Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But .. the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation ... you have to go beyond reason.
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. We realize that you can not design that which you don't comprehend, and thus we can reason about what a designer must comprehend. We can see the good things, the variety, the beauty in our own minds and body and reason about the implications. As the Bible writer David said, "Oh Jehovah, we are fearfully and wonderfully made!" Inference is a type of reasoning.
TONY: ..God's mind was not designed. This obviously does not answer where it came from, but it does stop the train from the endless 'what designed that' argument.DHW: I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from.
See the bolded statement.
DHW: But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter.
How can impersonal and unconscious have a frame of reference for personality and consciousness?
TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)... If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.Dhw: This is what I use in my efforts to understand the workings of God’s mind (if he exists), but David rejects such an approach, and I’m not sure that you approve either. As for imagining eternity and infinity, there is nothing in my own life that can give me a frame of reference.
Tony: I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.
My disagreement with Tony is more than slight. God's personality can only be imagined based on how we think and what we see in his works. "Imagined" is only slightly relatable.
TONY: 2A is also the reason I do not believe God created physical life first, nor do I believe he started off with masses of creations right off. It is, however, logical, that he created what he saw as his 'reflection' (son) first. Then, by observing the growth of his son, gained more insight that allowed for further creation.DHW: (I don’t believe either that he started with masses of creations, since I believe in evolution from single cells onwards!
I think you are trying to connect unconnected ideas. Creating his son, and together with his son other heavenly creatures, would likely teach him a great deal. Creating the universe would also teach him a great deal. 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?
TONY: Secondly, the better question is why wouldn't He want a relationship with creatures that he designed in his image? We were unique in all of physical creation […]
DHW: My “why” concerned the reason for wanting a relationship... could it be that he designed us in his image because he got bored with the company of his fellow spirits, couldn’t use them to “grow” any more, and thought of creating a new experience – physical life, with all its unique pains and pleasures? I’m not asking you to believe it, but just to say if you think it is possible. (Please don’t forget your agreement that initially, for his very first offspring, my “idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on”.)
I do not think so. While 'anything is possible', if that were the way he is, why not just wipe the slate clean and start over after a rebellion?
DHW: If you’re sure he has our thoughts, and his logic is like ours, I don’t know why you object to my proposing that he has human-like thoughts and logic.
TONY: Well, how about the logic of creation (i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfilment of God’s logic?
DHW: Definition of what? If God exists, I would certainly accept that he used science and maths. But the logic we are discussing here concerns purpose, not means.
That is truth. To understand that, you have to look at something deeper, something you have generally refused to acknowledge: love.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
TONY: […] faith is based on reason.
DHW: Up to a point. It is reasonable to assume that life had an origin. But .. the moment you BELIEVE in any one explanation ... you have to go beyond reason.
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. […]
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.
DHW: But by definition it [first cause] does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter.
TONY: How can impersonal and unconscious have a frame of reference for personality and consciousness?
DAVID: What makes an argument for God are the obvious requirements for a thinking mind: an explanation for fine tuning, the origin of life, the complexity of living biology [etc.].
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: I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.
DAVID: My disagreement with Tony is more than slight. God's personality can only be imagined based on how we think and what we see in his works. "Imagined" is only slightly relatable.
And:
DAVID: He has to be imagined from what we know He has presented. Like the Wizard of Oz, He is the man behind the curtain. Why do you think Adler warns about the difference in His personality […]?
One of the great moments of world literature! Of course, Oz was not a wizard after all. But I agree: if God exists, we can only imagine him by looking at his works: the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, including humans “in his image”, creating their own pains and pleasures. And we can only imagine his purpose: perhaps a spectacle to relieve his boredom and isolation? After all, in spite of your hero Adler, you agree that God has our thoughts and his logic is like ours.
DHW: How would watching his son grow “allow” him to create bacteria? And if your God could expand his experience through other spiritual beings, why do you think he bothered with the dodo (extinct) or the duckbilled platypus (extant)? Did they enable him to “grow”?
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?
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).
DHW: I’m not asking you to believe it, but just to say if you think it is possible. (Please don’t forget your agreement that initially, for his very first offspring, my “idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on”.)
TONY: I do not think so. While 'anything is possible', if that were the way he is, why not just wipe the slate clean and start over after a rebellion?
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.
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.?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 30, 2018, 15:13 (2029 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: I've never disagreed that God has emotions or thoughts that are humanesque. Like David, I think 'his ways are higher than our ways', but that does not make them non-relatable. I think David and I disagree slightly on the degree of how relatable they are.
DAVID: My disagreement with Tony is more than slight. God's personality can only be imagined based on how we think and what we see in his works. "Imagined" is only slightly relatable.
And:
DAVID: He has to be imagined from what we know He has presented. Like the Wizard of Oz, He is the man behind the curtain. Why do you think Adler warns about the difference in His personality […]?
dhw: One of the great moments of world literature! Of course, Oz was not a wizard after all. But I agree: if God exists, we can only imagine him by looking at his works: the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, including humans “in his image”, creating their own pains and pleasures. And we can only imagine his purpose: perhaps a spectacle to relieve his boredom and isolation? After all, in spite of your hero Adler, you agree that God has our thoughts and his logic is like ours.
Neat trick. Of course God thinks and some portion of his thinking and logic mirrors ours. That is all I have given you. I view his mind as exceedingly more powerful than ours in depth of thought and overall knowledge, and I suggest you should think of His mind in that context. Perhaps then you will quit humanizing Him so severely.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
Dhw: […] if God exists, we can only imagine him by looking at his works: the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, including humans “in his image”, creating their own pains and pleasures. And we can only imagine his purpose: perhaps a spectacle to relieve his boredom and isolation? After all, in spite of your hero Adler, you agree that God has our thoughts and his logic is like ours.
DAVID: Neat trick. Of course God thinks and some portion of his thinking and logic mirrors ours. That is all I have given you. I view his mind as exceedingly more powerful than ours in depth of thought and overall knowledge, and I suggest you should think of His mind in that context. Perhaps then you will quit humanizing Him so severely.
It’s not a trick! If your God exists, then of course his mind and knowledge and power are infinitely greater than ours, but you are the one who constantly talks of his purposefulness, and that is what we are discussing. You quite rightly argue that we can only guess at his purpose and his nature by studying his works. That is what both of us do. You conclude that his prime purpose was to create humans so that they would “recognize” him, he could have a relationship with us (though he remains hidden), and prove himself to us. All that is “humanizing”, and in my view inadequate as an explanation of the nature and history of his works. You have never been able to find a flaw in the logic of my hypothesis, but you simply can’t stand the thought that your God – whose thinking and logic mirrors ours “in some portion” – might mirror us in ways that don’t correspond to your own humanization of him. Your God as “first cause” was by definition isolated. 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?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, October 01, 2018, 14:55 (2028 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: […] if God exists, we can only imagine him by looking at his works: the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, including humans “in his image”, creating their own pains and pleasures. And we can only imagine his purpose: perhaps a spectacle to relieve his boredom and isolation? After all, in spite of your hero Adler, you agree that God has our thoughts and his logic is like ours.
DAVID: Neat trick. Of course God thinks and some portion of his thinking and logic mirrors ours. That is all I have given you. I view his mind as exceedingly more powerful than ours in depth of thought and overall knowledge, and I suggest you should think of His mind in that context. Perhaps then you will quit humanizing Him so severely.
dhw: It’s not a trick! If your God exists, then of course his mind and knowledge and power are infinitely greater than ours, but you are the one who constantly talks of his purposefulness, and that is what we are discussing. You quite rightly argue that we can only guess at his purpose and his nature by studying his works. That is what both of us do. You conclude that his prime purpose was to create humans so that they would “recognize” him, he could have a relationship with us (though he remains hidden), and prove himself to us. All that is “humanizing”, and in my view inadequate as an explanation of the nature and history of his works. You have never been able to find a flaw in the logic of my hypothesis, but you simply can’t stand the thought that your God – whose thinking and logic mirrors ours “in some portion” – might mirror us in ways that don’t correspond to your own humanization of him. Your God as “first cause” was by definition isolated. 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?
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? 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. 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. 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.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
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”.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 17:20 (2026 days ago) @ dhw
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.
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." 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.
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.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 03, 2018, 00:18 (2026 days ago) @ dhw
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?
dhw: 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.
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. Each iteration of a universe has an evolution of creatures and He may be interested in seeing how each group works out their existence. He is not experimenting but observing. Will each set of humans appreciate their chance at life. How will they conduct themselves and approach Him?
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.dhw: 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.
Not chickening out, but showing you He thinks at our level and also much higher
dhw: 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.
Answered above. Sentient beings recognize Him and their free will makes them a little unpredictable, so interesting to follow. Unlike Tony I don't let love enter the picture, since love is our wish, not proven by history.
dhw: But you do think that formless energy already had omniscient intelligence and consciousness which came from nowhere.
I'll stick with the undeniable logic that a designer is required. It is what made me a believer.
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!!dhw: 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.
What enormous complexity of biology of life we see requires a planing and designing mind, in my opinion eternal, always existing and consisting of energy. All we see did not come from pure nothing ; first cause required.
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.
dhw: 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”.
'Limits' comes from you ascribing Him human feelings like boredom. 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.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
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?
dhw: 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 both Tony and I have told you boredom is a human emotion. You cannot leave his human level, which He has but much more.
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: Each iteration of a universe has an evolution of creatures and He may be interested in seeing how each group works out their existence. He is not experimenting but observing. Will each set of humans appreciate their chance at life. How will they conduct themselves and approach Him?
If, in this divine-fiction story you are now imagining, he creates each universe to "see how" each set of humans responds, he is both experimenting and observing the spectacle he has created, and his particular interest in their approach to himself sounds delightfully human to me.
DAVID: Not chickening out, but showing you He thinks at our level and also much higher.
So he can be bored, but his level of boredom is much higher than ours.
DAVID: Sentient beings recognize Him and their free will makes them a little unpredictable, so interesting to follow.
Precisely. He has created a spectacle that he can observe with interest. Unpredictability (as provided by the comings and goings of life’s history) is an integral part of the spectacle to keep his interest, and human unpredictability provides a more interesting spectacle than anything else in life’s history. And what would you say is the opposite of “interesting”?
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.
But please explain why you think formless energy plasma can’t develop intelligence and consciousness, whereas pure energy can.
DAVID: All we see did not come from pure nothing; first cause required.
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: 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.
dhw: 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”.
DAVID: 'Limits' comes from you ascribing Him human feelings like boredom.
So why do you “limit” him by ascribing to him the desire to see how we will approach him, to have a relationship with us, to prove himself to us? You keep agreeing that he can have human thoughts and feelings, and then you chicken out again because although you think he can be interested, you don’t think he can be bored.
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.
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!
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?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 03, 2018, 15:12 (2026 days ago) @ dhw
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
And would have the ability to design nothing. In first cause a designer is required.
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!
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: 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?
The joy of creation. As a creator you should understand that point.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
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?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 04, 2018, 14:16 (2025 days ago) @ dhw
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?
I contention with this falls in line with my contention into your characterization of love. While I acknowledged that love does in fact bring the person demonstrating love pleasure, you take the position (or at least you seemed to in your rebuttal) that love is primarily self-serving, as opposed to the pleasure of it being a ancillary side-effect. The truism that 'there is more pleasure in giving then there is in receiving' encompasses this ideal. These words, attributed to Christ, only serve to illustrate my point. When you show selfless love you are rewarded with good feelings. Your view seems to be that if you do something pleasing to yourself, you can be loving too. This is the difference, and what I was unable to successfully articulate.
Yes, I believe Jehovah acted out of love. 1 John 4:7-8. Yes, I agree that he derived pleasure from acting out of love. That does not make love self-serving, it makes it rewarding. They are different concepts, and I do not, and can not, accept the way you try to flip them around and imply that selfishness is love and love is selfishness, regardless of whether you are talking about God or man.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, October 04, 2018, 14:54 (2025 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
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?
Tony:I contention with this falls in line with my contention into your characterization of love. While I acknowledged that love does in fact bring the person demonstrating love pleasure, you take the position (or at least you seemed to in your rebuttal) that love is primarily self-serving, as opposed to the pleasure of it being a ancillary side-effect. The truism that 'there is more pleasure in giving then there is in receiving' encompasses this ideal. These words, attributed to Christ, only serve to illustrate my point. When you show selfless love you are rewarded with good feelings. Your view seems to be that if you do something pleasing to yourself, you can be loving too. This is the difference, and what I was unable to successfully articulate.
Yes, I believe Jehovah acted out of love. 1 John 4:7-8. Yes, I agree that he derived pleasure from acting out of love. That does not make love self-serving, it makes it rewarding. They are different concepts, and I do not, and can not, accept the way you try to flip them around and imply that selfishness is love and love is selfishness, regardless of whether you are talking about God or man.
And I will stick to my position and Adler's: we cannot know that God acts with love. The view that God is love is wishful human level thinking and hope.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
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?
TONY: I contention with this falls in line with my contention into your characterization of love. While I acknowledged that love does in fact bring the person demonstrating love pleasure, you take the position (or at least you seemed to in your rebuttal) that love is primarily self-serving, as opposed to the pleasure of it being a ancillary side-effect. The truism that 'there is more pleasure in giving then there is in receiving' encompasses this ideal. These words, attributed to Christ, only serve to illustrate my point. When you show selfless love you are rewarded with good feelings. Your view seems to be that if you do something pleasing to yourself, you can be loving too. This is the difference, and what I was unable to successfully articulate.
Yes, I believe Jehovah acted out of love. 1 John 4:7-8. Yes, I agree that he derived pleasure from acting out of love. That does not make love self-serving, it makes it rewarding. They are different concepts, and I do not, and can not, accept the way you try to flip them around and imply that selfishness is love and love is selfishness, regardless of whether you are talking about God or man.
It was you who objected to my hypothesis because you said “love is not self-serving”. I took up the literal meaning of this to show that love does serve the self, by enabling humans/God to have “good feelings” about themselves. That does not in any way entail selfishness, which for me contains all the elements that prevent love! If you’re selfish, you couldn’t care less about others. This has now become a game of semantics, and you have shifted the focus from your God’s possible purposes to a definition of love. You agreed that initially his purpose may have been to relieve his own isolation/boredom. If, in order to do so, he created the great spectacle of life which also gave him something to love and be loved by, that’s fine with me, but so is David’s objection:
DAVID: And I will stick to my position and Adler's: we cannot know that God acts with love. The view that God is love is wishful human level thinking and hope.
The thought of a God who really is “selfish”, and who punishes those who don’t love him by, for instance, killing them all off in a flood, is the worst of all nightmares. Your objection to my hypothesis, then, is based entirely on your belief that your God loves us, and his pride and satisfaction and relief of isolation/boredom and good feelings about himself are merely offshoots of this love. But your objection must be right because you agree with a man called John, who wrote that “God is love”. I'm not even sure what that means, but in any case your God could be all kinds of things, and we can only speculate on what those might be.
DAVID: 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.
Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 05, 2018, 13:04 (2024 days ago) @ dhw
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?
TONY: I contention with this falls in line with my contention into your characterization of love. While I acknowledged that love does in fact bring the person demonstrating love pleasure, you take the position (or at least you seemed to in your rebuttal) that love is primarily self-serving, as opposed to the pleasure of it being a ancillary side-effect. The truism that 'there is more pleasure in giving then there is in receiving' encompasses this ideal. These words, attributed to Christ, only serve to illustrate my point. When you show selfless love you are rewarded with good feelings. Your view seems to be that if you do something pleasing to yourself, you can be loving too. This is the difference, and what I was unable to successfully articulate.
Yes, I believe Jehovah acted out of love. 1 John 4:7-8. Yes, I agree that he derived pleasure from acting out of love. That does not make love self-serving, it makes it rewarding. They are different concepts, and I do not, and can not, accept the way you try to flip them around and imply that selfishness is love and love is selfishness, regardless of whether you are talking about God or man.DHW: It was you who objected to my hypothesis because you said “love is not self-serving”. I took up the literal meaning of this to show that love does serve the self, by enabling humans/God to have “good feelings” about themselves. That does not in any way entail selfishness, which for me contains all the elements that prevent love! If you’re selfish, you couldn’t care less about others. This has now become a game of semantics, and you have shifted the focus from your God’s possible purposes to a definition of love.
No, I have not shifted the discussion. I stated that his primary purpose was love. Love by, nature and definition, puts others needs ahead of one's own.
You agreed that initially his purpose may have been to relieve his own isolation/boredom. If, in order to do so, he created the great spectacle of life which also gave him something to love and be loved by, that’s fine with me.
Only because the only thing to love 'in the beginning' would have been himself. Loving one's self is a good thing, and in fact I do not think it is possible to love another if you do not love yourself. But that to me is not as simple as boredom.
DHW: The thought of a God who really is “selfish”, and who punishes those who don’t love him by, for instance, killing them all off in a flood, is the worst of all nightmares. Your objection to my hypothesis, then, is based entirely on your belief that your God loves us, and his pride and satisfaction and relief of isolation/boredom and good feelings about himself are merely offshoots of this love. But your objection must be right because you agree with a man called John, who wrote that “God is love”. I'm not even sure what that means, but in any case your God could be all kinds of things, and we can only speculate on what those might be.DAVID: 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.
DHW: Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DHW: It was you who objected to my hypothesis because you said “love is not self-serving”. I took up the literal meaning of this to show that love does serve the self, by enabling humans/God to have “good feelings” about themselves. That does not in any way entail selfishness, which for me contains all the elements that prevent love! If you’re selfish, you couldn’t care less about others. This has now become a game of semantics, and you have shifted the focus from your God’s possible purposes to a definition of love.
TONY: No, I have not shifted the discussion. I stated that his primary purpose was love. Love by, nature and definition, puts others needs ahead of one's own.
Love of what? The trilobites, the dinosaurs, the flowers, the trees? Did he/does he put their needs ahead of his own? The word has a wide range of meanings, as you very well know. They also include romantic attraction (I fell in love with the girl who became my wife), caring deeply (I loved my grandfather), liking and enjoying (I love my work), loyalty (Trump says he loves his country). A few days ago you wrote: “I also see traces of sheer joy in creation...why shouldn’t he create things that are simply whimsical and fun?” Yes indeed. Enjoyment. The subject under discussion is God’s purpose in creating the universe and life, and the next two comments encapsulate (a) your agreement with my hypothesis, and (b) your attempt to shift the focus.
Dhw: You agreed that initially his purpose may have been to relieve his own isolation/boredom. If, in order to do so, he created the great spectacle of life which also gave him something to love and be loved by, that’s fine with me.
TONY: Only because the only thing to love 'in the beginning' would have been himself. Loving one's self is a good thing, and in fact I do not think it is possible to love another if you do not love yourself. But that to me is not as simple as boredom.
You can carry on speculating about the nature of love and self-love, but in the meantime you agree that (if he exists) he created the great spectacle of life because he was bored with his isolation (having only himself to love), and the spectacle gave him the opportunity to love and be loved, to enjoy and, as you said earlier, to feel good about himself and satisfied and proud. So why do you keep trying to dismiss my hypothesis when all your comments support it?
DAVID: 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.
dhw: Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.
DAVID: I didn't say He enjoys what He creates: I said "interested". I see intense purpose in His creations and I'm sure He has a sense of accomplishment, but not in our ways, because He knows what He can accomplish more surely than we do. He is a person like no other person.
If he’s “filled with the joy of creation” (your words), how could he possibly not enjoy creation? You see intense purpose, but whenever I ask you what that intense purpose might be, you come up with a list of humanizations (a relationship with us, interest and enjoyment, proving himself to us, sense of accomplishment), and then complain that my hypothesis (relieving the boredom of isolation) is humanizing. Yes, I can believe that if he exists he knows what he can accomplish, and if he can create universes and all forms of life and has been there for ever, and will never die, he is a person like no other person. That doesn’t mean that being bored with isolation is more humanizing than giving himself a sense of accomplishment etc. So once more, please explain why my hypothesis seems illogical to you.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, October 06, 2018, 15:33 (2023 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Only because the only thing to love 'in the beginning' would have been himself. Loving one's self is a good thing, and in fact I do not think it is possible to love another if you do not love yourself. But that to me is not as simple as boredom.dhw: You can carry on speculating about the nature of love and self-love, but in the meantime you agree that (if he exists) he created the great spectacle of life because he was bored with his isolation (having only himself to love), and the spectacle gave him the opportunity to love and be loved, to enjoy and, as you said earlier, to feel good about himself and satisfied and proud. So why do you keep trying to dismiss my hypothesis when all your comments support it?
DAVID: 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.
dhw: Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.
DAVID: I didn't say He enjoys what He creates: I said "interested". I see intense purpose in His creations and I'm sure He has a sense of accomplishment, but not in our ways, because He knows what He can accomplish more surely than we do. He is a person like no other person.
dhw: If he’s “filled with the joy of creation” (your words), how could he possibly not enjoy creation? You see intense purpose, but whenever I ask you what that intense purpose might be, you come up with a list of humanizations (a relationship with us, interest and enjoyment, proving himself to us, sense of accomplishment), and then complain that my hypothesis (relieving the boredom of isolation) is humanizing. Yes, I can believe that if he exists he knows what he can accomplish, and if he can create universes and all forms of life and has been there for ever, and will never die, he is a person like no other person. That doesn’t mean that being bored with isolation is more humanizing than giving himself a sense of accomplishment etc. So once more, please explain why my hypothesis seems illogical to you.
Why should He be bored? With the ability to produces universes and living beings, He is constantly busy creating. I'll agree He may be filled with a sense of accomplishment, but boredom is your problem, not His. He does have our human feelings plus more with a sense of purpose that may well accede ours. You and I cannot imagine His mental processes beyond using our own, but He is not us as you admit .
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: If he’s “filled with the joy of creation” (your words), how could he possibly not enjoy creation? You see intense purpose, but whenever I ask you what that intense purpose might be, you come up with a list of humanizations (a relationship with us, interest and enjoyment, proving himself to us, sense of accomplishment), and then complain that my hypothesis (relieving the boredom of isolation) is humanizing. Yes, I can believe that if he exists he knows what he can accomplish, and if he can create universes and all forms of life and has been there for ever, and will never die, he is a person like no other person. That doesn’t mean that being bored with isolation is more humanizing than giving himself a sense of accomplishment etc. So once more, please explain why my hypothesis seems illogical to you.
DAVID: Why should He be bored? With the ability to produces universes and living beings, He is constantly busy creating. I'll agree He may be filled with a sense of accomplishment, but boredom is your problem, not His. He does have our human feelings plus more with a sense of purpose that may well accede ours. You and I cannot imagine His mental processes beyond using our own, but He is not us as you admit.
Well, now you’ve decided that for eternity your God has been creating new universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, let's make the appropriate changes. I now suggest that if your hypothesis is true, and he has kept himself eternally busy with the joy of creating and watching with interest universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, he has done so because otherwise he would have been nothing but a great big blob of pure conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. And that would have been boring to a degree beyond our human imagination. Now please tell me why this hypothesis seems illogical to you.
Meanwhile, I don’t remember ever suggesting that an eternal and immortal mind with the power to create universes and invent life would be “us”. The significant “admission” here is yours – namely, that you believe your God may have our thoughts and feelings and logic.
I should add that I have no problem with the hypothesis that either our own universe is eternal or there have been other universes before ours, as first cause energy and matter eternally re-form themselves. That is why I regard the possibility that life and consciousness might eventually have emerged from this eternal recombining of materials as no more and no less credible than a sourceless, immaterial supermind eternally keeping itself busy creating spectacles for its own enjoyment (the “joy of creation”) because, well, what else was/is there for it to do?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, October 07, 2018, 14:53 (2022 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Why should He be bored? With the ability to produces universes and living beings, He is constantly busy creating. I'll agree He may be filled with a sense of accomplishment, but boredom is your problem, not His. He does have our human feelings plus more with a sense of purpose that may well accede ours. You and I cannot imagine His mental processes beyond using our own, but He is not us as you admit.
dhw: Well, now you’ve decided that for eternity your God has been creating new universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, let's make the appropriate changes. I now suggest that if your hypothesis is true, and he has kept himself eternally busy with the joy of creating and watching with interest universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, he has done so because otherwise he would have been nothing but a great big blob of pure conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. And that would have been boring to a degree beyond our human imagination. Now please tell me why this hypothesis seems illogical to you.
The bolded area is again your very inventive (why not, you invent life in your plays) defense of your indefensible boredom theory. He is a purposeful creator and has no thoughts about empty boredom feelings, because He is constantly busy designing and creating. Since you persist in staying at a human analysis level in looking at God, what do humans do when bored: they practice pass-timing, which is an inventive way to make time pass as recognized by psychologists but empty of anything useful. At the God level I would think His purposeful creations fill time, but there is another consideration: as an eternal Being, time is of no consequence to Him.
dhw: Meanwhile, I don’t remember ever suggesting that an eternal and immortal mind with the power to create universes and invent life would be “us”. The significant “admission” here is yours – namely, that you believe your God may have our thoughts and feelings and logic.
Of course God understands our level of thought. You want him to operate at our level. By definition as God, He doesn't.
dhw: I should add that I have no problem with the hypothesis that either our own universe is eternal or there have been other universes before ours, as first cause energy and matter eternally re-form themselves. That is why I regard the possibility that life and consciousness might eventually have emerged from this eternal recombining of materials as no more and no less credible than a sourceless, immaterial supermind eternally keeping itself busy creating spectacles for its own enjoyment (the “joy of creation”) because, well, what else was/is there for it to do?
A re-declaration of agnosticism.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: I now suggest that if your hypothesis is true, and he has kept himself eternally busy with the joy of creating and watching with interest universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, he has done so because otherwise he would have been nothing but a great big blob of pure conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. And that would have been boring to a degree beyond our human imagination. Now please tell me why this hypothesis seems illogical to you.
DAVID: The bolded area is again your very inventive (why not, you invent life in your plays) defense of your indefensible boredom theory. He is a purposeful creator and has no thoughts about empty boredom feelings, because He is constantly busy designing and creating.
I am amazed at your intimate knowledge of what goes on in your purposeful God’s mind, while the rest of us can only speculate. But what is this purpose? Your latest "very inventive" proposal of universe after universe, full of human beings whose actions he watches with interest “to see how they will conduct themselves and approach Him”, apparently keeps him fully occupied. And I am suggesting that without such an occupation he would be a blob of conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. That is why he keeps himself occupied by creating spectacles which give him the human-like joy and interest and satisfaction you have attributed to him.
DAVID: Since you persist in staying at a human analysis level in looking at God, what do humans do when bored: they practice pass-timing, which is an inventive way to make time pass as recognized by psychologists but empty of anything useful. At the God level I would think His purposeful creations fill time, but there is another consideration: as an eternal Being, time is of no consequence to Him.
If he creates universe AFTER universe, and watches how all these different humans behave and approach him, there has to be a sequence of before and after. That I would define as time, regardless of what consequence it is to him. Unlike your eternal, bodiless God, humans and their fellow animals are born into a world which immediately presents them with occupations on which their material lives depend. As a retired doctor you are perhaps aware of this. Only when our daily material requirements are met do we have time to get bored. But then where do you draw the line between what is and is not “useful”? What are your criteria for usefulness? What “use” is philosophy, art, sport, the theatre, literature, music etc. – but all these activities take on purposes of their own, and even provide careers by which practitioners can earn their food instead of growing or hunting it. You can also argue that they broaden the mind and provide us with new experiences and give us something to think about. Your God was not born into such a world, and since according to you he was the first cause, there was nothing besides him: no material needs, no existing cultures. Absolutely nothing but himself to think about until he started creating.
dhw: Meanwhile, I don’t remember ever suggesting that an eternal and immortal mind with the power to create universes and invent life would be “us”. The significant “admission” here is yours – namely, that you believe your God may have our thoughts and feelings and logic.
DAVID: Of course God understands our level of thought. You want him to operate at our level. By definition as God, He doesn't.
Not “understands” but shares. You agreed that he had our thoughts, feelings and logic, and you are in no better a position to “define” your God than I am. “Operate at our level” is not clear. If he is capable of thinking and feeling and reasoning, and of wanting a relationship with us and of watching us with interest and enjoyment, and of wanting to prove himself to us, then he is capable of needing something to do besides thinking about himself. Of course if he exists, he operates at a different level from us. We can’t create life-bearing universes.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, October 08, 2018, 15:11 (2021 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I now suggest that if your hypothesis is true, and he has kept himself eternally busy with the joy of creating and watching with interest universes full of who knows what kinds of life, but apparently always containing human beings, he has done so because otherwise he would have been nothing but a great big blob of pure conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. And that would have been boring to a degree beyond our human imagination. Now please tell me why this hypothesis seems illogical to you.
DAVID: The bolded area is again your very inventive (why not, you invent life in your plays) defense of your indefensible boredom theory. He is a purposeful creator and has no thoughts about empty boredom feelings, because He is constantly busy designing and creating.
dhw:I am amazed at your intimate knowledge of what goes on in your purposeful God’s mind, while the rest of us can only speculate. But what is this purpose? Your latest "very inventive" proposal of universe after universe, full of human beings whose actions he watches with interest “to see how they will conduct themselves and approach Him”, apparently keeps him fully occupied. And I am suggesting that without such an occupation he would be a blob of conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. That is why he keeps himself occupied by creating spectacles which give him the human-like joy and interest and satisfaction you have attributed to him. (my bold)
Did you ever consider God as selfless? Y ou can only think of Him as similar to you.
DAVID: Since you persist in staying at a human analysis level in looking at God, what do humans do when bored: they practice pass-timing, which is an inventive way to make time pass as recognized by psychologists but empty of anything useful. At the God level I would think His purposeful creations fill time, but there is another consideration: as an eternal Being, time is of no consequence to Him.dhw:If he creates universe AFTER universe, and watches how all these different humans behave and approach him, there has to be a sequence of before and after. That I would define as time, regardless of what consequence it is to him. Unlike your eternal, bodiless God, humans and their fellow animals are born into a world which immediately presents them with occupations on which their material lives depend. As a retired doctor you are perhaps aware of this. Only when our daily material requirements are met do we have time to get bored. But then where do you draw the line between what is and is not “useful”? What are your criteria for usefulness? What “use” is philosophy, art, sport, the theatre, literature, music etc. – but all these activities take on purposes of their own, and even provide careers by which practitioners can earn their food instead of growing or hunting it. You can also argue that they broaden the mind and provide us with new experiences and give us something to think about. Your God was not born into such a world, and since according to you he was the first cause, there was nothing besides him: no material needs, no existing cultures. Absolutely nothing but himself to think about until he started creating.
Pure humanizing of God. The concept of pass-timing in psychology is useless filling of time, and we all do it!
dhw: Meanwhile, I don’t remember ever suggesting that an eternal and immortal mind with the power to create universes and invent life would be “us”. The significant “admission” here is yours – namely, that you believe your God may have our thoughts and feelings and logic.DAVID: Of course God understands our level of thought. You want him to operate at our level. By definition as God, He doesn't.
dhw: Not “understands” but shares. You agreed that he had our thoughts, feelings and logic, and you are in no better a position to “define” your God than I am. “Operate at our level” is not clear. If he is capable of thinking and feeling and reasoning, and of wanting a relationship with us and of watching us with interest and enjoyment, and of wanting to prove himself to us, then he is capable of needing something to do besides thinking about himself. Of course if he exists, he operates at a different level from us. We can’t create life-bearing universes.
You still haven't taken your human concept of God to understanding that while He fully understands our lesser way of thinking his purposeful thoughts are on creation of universes. Our similarity is only a tiny portion of His mentality.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw:I am amazed at your intimate knowledge of what goes on in your purposeful God’s mind, while the rest of us can only speculate. But what is this purpose? […] I am suggesting that without such an occupation he would be a blob of conscious energy with nothing to do except think about himself. That is why he keeps himself occupied by creating spectacles which give him the human-like joy and interest and satisfaction you have attributed to him. (David's bold)
DAVID: Did you ever consider God as selfless? You can only think of Him as similar to you.
Did you ever consider that your God might have thoughts and feelings similar to ours, which is why he was able to create creatures with thoughts and feelings similar to his? Why do you tell us he wants a relationship with us, wants to prove himself to us, enjoys creation, watches us (and all the other humans in all the other universes you think he has created) with interest if you don’t think of him having these thoughts and feelings? What sort of God are you now trying to conjure up? A vast blob of conscious energy that has no feelings, no identity, no self? All this because although you constantly insist on how purposeful he is, you cannot stand the thought that his purpose might have been to keep himself occupied.
dhw: Unlike your eternal, bodiless God, humans and their fellow animals are born into a world which immediately presents them with occupations on which their material lives depend. As a retired doctor you are perhaps aware of this. Only when our daily material requirements are met do we have time to get bored. But then where do you draw the line between what is and is not “useful”? What are your criteria for usefulness? What “use” is philosophy, art, sport, the theatre, literature, music etc. – but all these activities take on purposes of their own, and even provide careers by which practitioners can earn their food instead of growing or hunting it. You can also argue that they broaden the mind and provide us with new experiences and give us something to think about. Your God was not born into such a world, and since according to you he was the first cause, there was nothing besides him: no material needs, no existing cultures. Absolutely nothing but himself to think about until he started creating.
DAVID: Pure humanizing of God. The concept of pass-timing in psychology is useless filling of time, and we all do it!
It is you who have introduced the term “pass-timing”, you have not told us your criteria for usefulness, you have ignored the whole argument above (that your God was not born into a world already filled with purposes and occupations), and you refuse to acknowledge that all your own interpretations of your God’s purposes are pure humanizations. And you still haven’t explained why the hypothesis I have offered is illogical. Your only objection seems to be that it doesn’t fit your personal image of your God.
DAVID: You still haven't taken your human concept of God to understanding that while He fully understands our lesser way of thinking his purposeful thoughts are on creation of universes. Our similarity is only a tiny portion of His mentality.
And yet again you use the word “purposeful”. So yet again, tell us what you think was/is his purpose in creating universes?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 09, 2018, 17:54 (2019 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Did you ever consider God as selfless? You can only think of Him as similar to you.
dhw: Did you ever consider that your God might have thoughts and feelings similar to ours, which is why he was able to create creatures with thoughts and feelings similar to his? Why do you tell us he wants a relationship with us, wants to prove himself to us, enjoys creation, watches us (and all the other humans in all the other universes you think he has created) with interest if you don’t think of him having these thoughts and feelings? What sort of God are you now trying to conjure up? A vast blob of conscious energy that has no feelings, no identity, no self? All this because although you constantly insist on how purposeful he is, you cannot stand the thought that his purpose might have been to keep himself occupied.
As an eternal being God is not tied to a passage of time, which to humans creates a requirement to fill that time with productive efforts or pass-timing. I'm sure God contains all of the human attributes of thought in His thoughts we have but He is much more than that as He proceeds to create. We can only guess at his motives, so why bother?
DAVID: Pure humanizing of God. The concept of pass-timing in psychology is useless filling of time, and we all do it!dhw: It is you who have introduced the term “pass-timing”, you have not told us your criteria for usefulness, you have ignored the whole argument above (that your God was not born into a world already filled with purposes and occupations), and you refuse to acknowledge that all your own interpretations of your God’s purposes are pure humanizations. And you still haven’t explained why the hypothesis I have offered is illogical. Your only objection seems to be that it doesn’t fit your personal image of your God.
Pass-timing is a concept from my training in psychology. It should be easy for you to recognize, as I'm sure you've done it, if you think about it. Is every moment of your life purposeful? As for guessing God's purposes, that is all they can be. I've produced some possibilities when goaded by you, but why bother? Just accept what He has provided.
DAVID: You still haven't taken your human concept of God to understanding that while He fully understands our lesser way of thinking his purposeful thoughts are on creation of universes. Our similarity is only a tiny portion of His mentality.dhw: And yet again you use the word “purposeful”. So yet again, tell us what you think was/is his purpose in creating universes?
I can only guess, which is all you can do while trying to make Him a person like us. He isn't
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: What sort of God are you now trying to conjure up? A vast blob of conscious energy that has no feelings, no identity, no self? All this because although you constantly insist on how purposeful he is, you cannot stand the thought that his purpose might have been to keep himself occupied.
DAVID: As an eternal being God is not tied to a passage of time, which to humans creates a requirement to fill that time with productive efforts or pass-timing. I'm sure God contains all of the human attributes of thought in His thoughts we have but He is much more than that as He proceeds to create. We can only guess at his motives, so why bother?
So your God apparently creates universe after universe (before and after = time) containing humans whose behaviour (which requires befores and afters) he can observe with interest while also revelling in the joy of creation (which also requires befores and afters), but he does not feel any requirement to do so. He just does so with no purpose in mind, although for ten years you have hammered home the message that your God is purposeful. And now, as I continue to pursue YOUR argument, and as you can clearly find no fault in the logic of my hypothesis but dislike its implications, you resort to “why bother?” We don’t even know whether your God exists. We can’t know. So why bother to ask? Why did you bother to write two brilliant books about it, and why did I bother to set up this website? We bother because we care, and one of the inspiring things about humans is that, for all our faults and for all our ignorance, we refuse to give up.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 10, 2018, 18:37 (2018 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What sort of God are you now trying to conjure up? A vast blob of conscious energy that has no feelings, no identity, no self? All this because although you constantly insist on how purposeful he is, you cannot stand the thought that his purpose might have been to keep himself occupied.
DAVID: As an eternal being God is not tied to a passage of time, which to humans creates a requirement to fill that time with productive efforts or pass-timing. I'm sure God contains all of the human attributes of thought in His thoughts we have but He is much more than that as He proceeds to create. We can only guess at his motives, so why bother?
dhw: So your God apparently creates universe after universe (before and after = time) containing humans whose behaviour (which requires befores and afters) he can observe with interest while also revelling in the joy of creation (which also requires befores and afters), but he does not feel any requirement to do so. He just does so with no purpose in mind, although for ten years you have hammered home the message that your God is purposeful. And now, as I continue to pursue YOUR argument, and as you can clearly find no fault in the logic of my hypothesis but dislike its implications, you resort to “why bother?” We don’t even know whether your God exists. We can’t know. So why bother to ask? Why did you bother to write two brilliant books about it, and why did I bother to set up this website? We bother because we care, and one of the inspiring things about humans is that, for all our faults and for all our ignorance, we refuse to give up.
We don't stop because we all enjoy using our searching minds to try and achieve some answers to the imponderable questions, such as why is there anything? God's obvoius purpose is to create universes and living organisms with consciousness that are broad enough in mental capacity to try and understand how God did it. You want His underlying motives to be revealed Your questions imply why does He have this purpose. Stop and think that God has a consciousness which has no bounds that we can be aware of. We humans have limits to what mental capacities we have, so how can we really know what underlying purposes God has? That is why I at first tried to accommodate your persistent questions as His possible purposes and now I've basically given up because the avenue to inquiry has no answers we can accept as possible truths. I accept what I have see God has given us, and follow the Passover thought: 'deyanu', it is enough. Rabbis who created this service have enough wisdom to understand there is a point where inquiry has gone to a final boundary.
We might just as well wonder why you started this site. I can conjure up possibilities: primarily you are uncomfortable in your picket fence position. You are surrounded by atheists on one side and theists on the other and both groups are sure in their positions, while you squirm without any answers except 'I can't believe anything' or 'I won't believe anything'. And I don't accept your hypotheses as logical since they start from a position of not accepting the logical necessity of the designed complexity of life requires a designing mind.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: We don't stop because we all enjoy using our searching minds to try and achieve some answers to the imponderable questions, such as why is there anything? God's obvoius purpose is to create universes and living organisms with consciousness that are broad enough in mental capacity to try and understand how God did it.
You want His underlying motives to be revealed Your questions imply why does He have this purpose. Stop and think that God has a consciousness which has no bounds that we can be aware of. We humans have limits to what mental capacities we have, so how can we really know what underlying purposes God has? That is why I at first tried to accommodate your persistent questions as His possible purposes and now I've basically given up because the avenue to inquiry has no answers we can accept as possible truths. I accept what I have see God has given us, and follow the Passover thought: 'deyanu', it is enough. Rabbis who created this service have enough wisdom to understand there is a point where inquiry has gone to a final boundary
So your God, if he exists, created universes because his purpose was to create universes, and he created life because he wanted to create minds which would try to understand how he did it. I don’t know how many of our fellow living (or dead) organisms have minds that try to understand how he did it, and I don’t know how you even know that this was his purpose anyway. And so, since all further questions are apparently pointless, I suggest the following alternative: we don’t know if God exists, but if he does, his purpose in creating the universe and life must have been to create the universe and life. I’m sure the rabbis in their wisdom would agree that this is the point where inquiry has gone to a final boundary, and we should therefore stop talking about God's purposefulness altogether.
DAVID: We might just as well wonder why you started this site. I can conjure up possibilities: primarily you are uncomfortable in your picket fence position. You are surrounded by atheists on one side and theists on the other and both groups are sure in their positions, while you squirm without any answers except 'I can't believe anything' or 'I won't believe anything'. And I don't accept your hypotheses as logical since they start from a position of not accepting the logical necessity of the designed complexity of life requires a designing mind.
The logic of the hypotheses you are disputing concerns your God’s possible purpose for creating the universe and life. Nothing to do with the logic of design hypotheses relating to his existence. As for why I started the website, I was indeed uncomfortable and even squirming at the standard of debate on both sides concerning Dawkins''The God Delusion', which was the trigger. And so initially I was hoping to encourage a more balanced approach to the whole subject, though I was also acutely aware of my own ignorance. Hence the purpose summarized on the homepage:
"The purpose of this website is to provide a forum for discussion."
"The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights."
Thanks largely to you, but also to many others over the 10+ years of its existence, I can honestly say that it has fulfilled that purpose, even though I am still sitting quite comfortably but thoughtfully on my picket fence.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, October 11, 2018, 15:39 (2018 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We don't stop because we all enjoy using our searching minds to try and achieve some answers to the imponderable questions, such as why is there anything? God's obvoius purpose is to create universes and living organisms with consciousness that are broad enough in mental capacity to try and understand how God did it.
You want His underlying motives to be revealed Your questions imply why does He have this purpose. Stop and think that God has a consciousness which has no bounds that we can be aware of. We humans have limits to what mental capacities we have, so how can we really know what underlying purposes God has? That is why I at first tried to accommodate your persistent questions as His possible purposes and now I've basically given up because the avenue to inquiry has no answers we can accept as possible truths. I accept what I have see God has given us, and follow the Passover thought: 'deyanu', it is enough. Rabbis who created this service have enough wisdom to understand there is a point where inquiry has gone to a final boundary
dhw: So your God, if he exists, created universes because his purpose was to create universes, and he created life because he wanted to create minds which would try to understand how he did it. I don’t know how many of our fellow living (or dead) organisms have minds that try to understand how he did it, and I don’t know how you even know that this was his purpose anyway. And so, since all further questions are apparently pointless, I suggest the following alternative: we don’t know if God exists, but if he does, his purpose in creating the universe and life must have been to create the universe and life. I’m sure the rabbis in their wisdom would agree that this is the point where inquiry has gone to a final boundary, and we should therefore stop talking about God's purposefulness altogether.
The rabbis are/were wise. His purpose is beyond us.
DAVID: We might just as well wonder why you started this site. I can conjure up possibilities: primarily you are uncomfortable in your picket fence position. You are surrounded by atheists on one side and theists on the other and both groups are sure in their positions, while you squirm without any answers except 'I can't believe anything' or 'I won't believe anything'. And I don't accept your hypotheses as logical since they start from a position of not accepting the logical necessity of the designed complexity of life requires a designing mind.dhw: The logic of the hypotheses you are disputing concerns your God’s possible purpose for creating the universe and life. Nothing to do with the logic of design hypotheses relating to his existence. As for why I started the website, I was indeed uncomfortable and even squirming at the standard of debate on both sides concerning Dawkins''The God Delusion', which was the trigger. And so initially I was hoping to encourage a more balanced approach to the whole subject, though I was also acutely aware of my own ignorance. Hence the purpose summarized on the homepage:
"The purpose of this website is to provide a forum for discussion."
"The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights."Thanks largely to you, but also to many others over the 10+ years of its existence, I can honestly say that it has fulfilled that purpose, even though I am still sitting quite comfortably but thoughtfully on my picket fence.
It has provided many great discussions and discoveries.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, October 05, 2018, 15:17 (2024 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It was you who objected to my hypothesis because you said “love is not self-serving”. I took up the literal meaning of this to show that love does serve the self, by enabling humans/God to have “good feelings” about themselves. That does not in any way entail selfishness, which for me contains all the elements that prevent love! If you’re selfish, you couldn’t care less about others. This has now become a game of semantics, and you have shifted the focus from your God’s possible purposes to a definition of love. You agreed that initially his purpose may have been to relieve his own isolation/boredom. If, in order to do so, he created the great spectacle of life which also gave him something to love and be loved by, that’s fine with me, but so is David’s objection:DAVID: And I will stick to my position and Adler's: we cannot know that God acts with love. The view that God is love is wishful human level thinking and hope.
dhw:The thought of a God who really is “selfish”, and who punishes those who don’t love him by, for instance, killing them all off in a flood, is the worst of all nightmares. Your objection to my hypothesis, then, is based entirely on your belief that your God loves us, and his pride and satisfaction and relief of isolation/boredom and good feelings about himself are merely offshoots of this love. But your objection must be right because you agree with a man called John, who wrote that “God is love”. I'm not even sure what that means, but in any case your God could be all kinds of things, and we can only speculate on what those might be.
DAVID: 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.
dhw: Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.
I didn't say He enjoys what He creates: I said "interested". I see intense purpose in His creations and I'm sure He has a sense of accomplishment, but not in our ways, because He knows what He can accomplish more surely than we do. He is a person like no other person.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, October 04, 2018, 14:45 (2025 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.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 30, 2018, 19:29 (2028 days ago) @ dhw
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.
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.
Neither can I, hence the reason I believe(as opposed to 'have faith') that his consciousness grew over time from formless energy.
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).
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.?
Because love is not self-serving.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 30, 2018, 19:50 (2028 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
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.
No, love can be rewarding in receiving love in return. There can be the heartbreak of rejection.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 30, 2018, 20:37 (2028 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.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
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.
Assured by what/whom? Faith is a firm belief and/or trust in something or someone. Atheists have faith in the creative genius of chance. I’d put your faith/firm belief in an unknown, sourceless mind called God on a par with theirs, as going beyond reason. (That doesn’t mean theists and atheists do not have good reasons for their respective beliefs in God/chance: it simply means that both theories leave so many unanswered questions that one needs to go beyond reason in order to have a firm belief in either.)
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.
I see no more reason to believe that formless energy has somehow always been conscious, but "grew", than to believe that formless energy transmuted itself into materials, which over time somehow produced and developed their own forms of consciousness.
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.
But you do think that formless energy already had omniscient intelligence and consciousness which came from nowhere.
TONY: 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 […]
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.
He is also described as an angry God, an indifferent God, a jealous God etc...I await more news of the “far greater purpose”, other than for your God to “grow”, which still fits in neatly with the “spectacle” from which he can learn all the time.
TONY: I see no reason he would not take joy in his creation.
Nor do I. He would hardly have created the great spectacle if he didn’t want to enjoy it.
TONY: I simply disagree that 'spectacle' or 'boredom relief' was his primary purpose.
I’ve left out your car analogy, because all designers have a purpose. By all means disagree, but a) can you fault the logic of the hypothesis, and b) as above, please sum up in as few words as possible what you think was the primary purpose.
DHW: 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.
Don’t you derive personal joy from loving your family? And doesn’t your personal joy “serve” you? (That does not preclude sacrificing your own interests to serve theirs.) Or are you thinking specifically of your God’s love, meaning that he couldn’t have created the spectacle to relieve his isolation/boredom because love is not self-serving. See above and below for the self-serving joy of love. However, if your God exists, and although we could then be in shocking trouble if he doesn’t love us, how do you know that he loves us? (Cue for David to scream: "Too severely humanizing!")
DAVID: No, love can be rewarding in receiving love in return.
TONY: 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.)
We can say that the reward for loving and being loved is personal joy, which is self-serving. So you can serve yourself by gaining the pleasure of serving someone else or of being served by them. I still don’t know why you think love precludes the possibility that your God’s prime purpose was to put an end to his isolation/boredom. Having something to love and be loved by (self-serving or not) would be a great way to fill the void, and would explain the anger and frustration so rife in the OT, while we can also have him enjoying the weird and wonderful goings-on as the pre-human spectacle unfolds itself (because I very much doubt that trilobites and dinosaurs would have shown him much love). I still think you and I are developing a similar vision here as regards your God’s purpose, even if it is too severely humanizing for David.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, October 01, 2018, 15:06 (2028 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Neither can I, hence the reason I believe(as opposed to 'have faith') that his consciousness grew over time from formless energy.
dhw: I see no more reason to believe that formless energy has somehow always been conscious, but "grew", than to believe that formless energy transmuted itself into materials, which over time somehow produced and developed their own forms of consciousness.
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.
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!!
DHW: 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.
dhw: Don’t you derive personal joy from loving your family? And doesn’t your personal joy “serve” you? (That does not preclude sacrificing your own interests to serve theirs.) Or are you thinking specifically of your God’s love, meaning that he couldn’t have created the spectacle to relieve his isolation/boredom because love is not self-serving. See above and below for the self-serving joy of love. However, if your God exists, and although we could then be in shocking trouble if he doesn’t love us, how do you know that he loves us? (Cue for David to scream: "Too severely humanizing!")
DAVID: No, love can be rewarding in receiving love in return.
TONY: 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.)
We can say that the reward for loving and being loved is personal joy, which is self-serving. So you can serve yourself by gaining the pleasure of serving someone else or of being served by them. I still don’t know why you think love precludes the possibility that your God’s prime purpose was to put an end to his isolation/boredom. Having something to love and be loved by (self-serving or not) would be a great way to fill the void, and would explain the anger and frustration so rife in the OT, while we can also have him enjoying the weird and wonderful goings-on as the pre-human spectacle unfolds itself (because I very much doubt that trilobites and dinosaurs would have shown him much love). I still think you and I are developing a similar vision here as regards your God’s purpose, even if it is too severely humanizing for David.
My position is explained in the previous entry.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 00:44 (2027 days ago) @ dhw
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
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 00:57 (2027 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
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.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, September 29, 2018, 15:13 (2030 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I’m afraid abandoning the word “design” still leaves us with the equally endless argument of where did it come from. David’s answer is the usual philosophical cop-out:
DAVID: There is no designer of God if He is eternal, which is my view. First cause by definition is 'first'.
dhw: But by definition it does not have to be God. It can be an impersonal and unconscious universe of energy and matter. The fact that you disagree does not make “first cause” an argument for God.
What makes an argument for God are the obvious requirements for a thinking mind: an explanation for fine tuning, the origin of life, and the complexity of living biology , all of which requires you to imagine a 'unconscious impersonal universe' which becomes a designer of living matter and consciousness.
TONY: 2 (a) Any designer(s) must have a frame of reference upon which to base their design(experience).)dhw: This can only mean that your designer has created life before, and before, and before… Impossible to imagine – as are eternity and infinity.
TONY: Not really. If you experience your own life, then you have a frame of reference to draw from.
dhw: This is what I use in my efforts to understand the workings of God’s mind (if he exists), but David rejects such an approach, and I’m not sure that you approve either. As for imagining eternity and infinity, there is nothing in my own life that can give me a frame of reference.
And there is nothing in your life to give you a frame of reference to God. He has to be imagined from what we know He has presented. Like the Wizard of Oz, He is the man behind the curtain. Why do you think Adler warns about the difference in His personality as He starts his book?
DHW (to David): Why would he want to have a relationship with us?
If He gave us consciousness we would naturally relate to Him. I can easily assume He understood in advance we would automatically relate to Him. We have and don't have to imagine why. If He wanted us to exist it would happen. Why do you need a motive for Him if He sees Himself as a creator with purpose?
TONY: First, there is a reason, and we were told the reason. To care for his creation(i.e. planet earth and the animals that reside upon it.)dhw: As above: why did he create the dodo and the duckbilled platypus for us to look after?
All in a diverse balance of nature, which is requires for life to continue.
DAVID: The relationship comes from God creating consciousness in our brains which is a purposeful act to allow us to recognize Him. No other being knows of Him. No other explanation is needed.
dhw: So the relationship and the purpose of the relationship consists in God wanting us to recognize him. How very human of him. But all that great bush of organisms from bacteria to the duckbilled platypus and ourselves in order that we should say: “God did it”? I have to say it’s not my idea of a relationship, but then I’m only human.
DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.
dhw: You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?
DAVID: I'm sure his logic is like ours. But you cannot envision God except as a human being in thought.
dhw: If you’re sure he has our thoughts, and his logic is like ours, I don’t know why you object to my proposing that he has human-like thoughts and logic.
I've said His thoughts are similar to ours. What you keep ignoring is Adler's admonition that his personality is like no other personality we know. You want to poke into an area we cannot know.
TONY: Well, how about the logic of creation (i.e. Science & Math), which by definition, would be the fulfilment of God’s logic?dhw: Definition of what? If God exists, I would certainly accept that he used science and maths. But the logic we are discussing here concerns purpose, not means.
You miss the point that our knowledge of math and science tells us much about the logic of creation and does imply purposeful activity.
philosophy of science: defining design by part placement
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 23:03 (1038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Michael Behe returns:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/recognizing-design-by-a-purposeful-arrangement-of-parts/
"...a mind can arrange parts to achieve its purposes. Of course, we ourselves have minds. And it is a fundamental power of mind that it can discern purposes. Thus we can recognize that a mind has acted by perceiving a purposeful arrangement of parts. There is no other way that I can think of by which we can recognize another mind.
"For purposes of detecting other minds, “parts” can be virtually anything. Examples include: the purposeful arrangement of sounds in speech; words and letters in writing; mechanical parts in machinery; the timing of events in a surprise party; combinations of all those things; and an infinite number of other ways. There are many other things to say to fill this out that I can’t go into here (especially the issue of “spandrels,” that is, features that are unintended for themselves but are the side effects of constructing designed systems). Nonetheless, the overriding point is that we can only recognize design/mind in the purposeful arrangement of parts.
"Other phrases that people use to indicate intelligent design all boil down to purposeful arrangements of parts. For example, Stephen Meyer likes to point out that we know intelligent agents produce information, so when we come across coded information in a computer program we can conclude it was produced by an intelligent agent. True enough. Yet how do we know there is information in a string of zeroes and ones — in a computer program? Only if we find that they are arranged for a purpose; that is, if the computer program has a function, if it can do something purposeful. In the same way, irreducibly complex systems resist Darwinian explanation, but how do we know they are designed? Because we see they can do something, that they have a purpose, they are a purposeful arrangement of parts. (As an aside, IC systems have two relevant properties — their discontinuous nature resists Darwinism and their manifest purposiveness strongly points to design.)
"Finally, in the case of the eye, rather than “specified complexity,” I think it is much, much easier to parse design for a lay audience (or a professional one) as a purposeful arrangement of parts. Audiences will immediately recognize the purpose in the arrangement of the eye’s components. In my view, the phrase specified complexity only obscures the same meaning as found in purposeful arrangement. The “specified” in the phrase specified complexity is pretty much the same as “purposeful,” and “complexity” the same as “arrangement.” Yet the phrase “purposeful arrangement” is at once less mathy, less forbidding, more accessible, and clearer."
Comment: As Dawkins said, it sure looks designed.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 28, 2018, 15:26 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: 2 (c) Yes indeed, and if your God exists, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that he did have a motive. That is what we keep discussing: not whether he had a motive, but what it might have been. But the guessed-at motive also entails guessing at his nature, because we are trying to read his mind. So we look at his works, or at what different people have written about him, and we can draw any number of conclusions.
DAVID: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in the past. […] As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
dhw: Yes, we can only guess. Yes, your imagined God would have to be eternal, unless he himself was designed. We’ve argued ad nauseam over “the” purpose of creating thinking humans, as you agree he may have had other purposes (including proving himself and even providing himself with a spectacle), and although you don’t like guessing at his purpose for creating thinking humans, you came up with his wish to have a relationship with us (while remaining hidden). Why would he want to have a relationship with us?
There is no designer of God if He is eternal, which is my view. First cause by definition is 'first'. The relationship comes from God creating consciousness in our brains which is a purposeful act to allow us to recognize Him. No other being knows of Him. No other explanation is needed.
TONY: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.dhw: You wrote: “For god to create one offspring, your idea of boredom and/or loneliness is likely spot on.” I didn’t reword anything. However, you limited it to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only direct creation – Jesus – and then argued that the relief of boredom/loneliness ended there, and afterwards he needed more entities to enable him to “grow”. My point, of course, is that “growing” would be the continuing antidote to boredom and isolation.
(I’ll leave the two of you to squabble over the meaning of your God’s names and the need for him to “grow”.)
DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.
dhw: So you agree that he was eternally isolated, but you don’t think he felt it. I must say I’m surprised that a God “who has our thoughts” didn’t have our thoughts. I suggest that, if he exists, he felt it and that’s why he created the universe and life. At least it’s a logical progression.
DAVID: Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic.
dhw: You are happy to use human logic when discussing design, what other logic can we use, and how do you know that God’s logic is different from ours?
I'm sure his logic is like ours. But you cannot envision God except as a human being in thought.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 18:42 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. […] Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.
dhw: Nobody knows which interpretation is accurate, or what the purpose might have been.
DAVID: Evolution is a guide to purpose. Look at what has appeared against all odds, humans! The complexity of evolution and life require as designer.
dhw: All life appeared against the odds, and of course if God exists he will have had a purpose. And I have conceded that the complexities suggest design, but not necessarily one designer (atheistic panpsychist hypothesis), and your designer is no less of a mystery than the origin and complexities of life.
dhw (to David): Why are you so sure your God created humans without ever having experienced any of the thoughts that humans have?
DAVID: Since we are in His image our thoughts are similar but His are not at a human level of understanding. Always remember the difference. The image is only mental.
dhw: What is this “level of understanding”? Either he has experienced certain thoughts or he hasn’t.
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 27, 2018, 19:37 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
David: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 23:39 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
David: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
Tony: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
Thanks for the clarification of your view. I certainly agree about the concept of boredom is totally wrong, as it is a humanizing view of God. I also do not think God has a 'need to grow'. I view him as all He can be or needs to be.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 28, 2018, 02:40 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
David: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
Tony: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
David: Thanks for the clarification of your view. I certainly agree about the concept of boredom is totally wrong, as it is a humanizing view of God. I also do not think God has a 'need to grow'. I view him as all He can be or needs to be.
His name literally means: I am/will be what I am/will be.
This implies that he can change, or grow, to be what he needs to be in order to accomplish his purpose.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 28, 2018, 04:45 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
David: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
Tony: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
David: Thanks for the clarification of your view. I certainly agree about the concept of boredom is totally wrong, as it is a humanizing view of God. I also do not think God has a 'need to grow'. I view him as all He can be or needs to be.
Tony: His name literally means: I am/will be what I am/will be.
This implies that he can change, or grow, to be what he needs to be in order to accomplish his purpose.
When God appears in the burning bush He says I am what I am. My encyclopedic dictionary which is part of the Masoretic text OT I have does not give that definition of God as you do. He is Lord or eternal, and eternal is considered the most proper . Again we are humans who try to describe Him. Another Jewish source I have describes the words for God as meaning Lord, Master, ruler and judge. I see no sense that He needs to grow.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 28, 2018, 12:23 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Quibbling: God is not human. Of course He has our thoughts, but with His degree of creation powers He is thinking at a level we cannot reach. Again, you can't seem to leave your humanizing view of Him, probably ground in your inability to accept His existence at His level of power.
dhw: I agree that God is not human, thank you for agreeing that he has our thoughts, but no thanks for not explaining what you mean by those thoughts being “at a level we cannot reach”. Tony agreed that he may have experienced boredom. So since he is God, his boredom would be at a level of boredom that we cannot reach. So what? Boredom is boredom.
David: You and Tony can believe He was bored. I don't. I envision God as eternal and with the purpose of creating thinking humans, which I suspect He has done many times in he past. I'm happy Tony supported you but as a committee of three our discussions don't prove any truths, just opinions. Since I am not God. His level of thought is something I imagine as beyond any thinking we can do. As God is imagined, we humans can only guess what He is exactly like.
Tony: And even that agreement is limited. For some reason, no matter how many times I say I disagree with that particular word because of the connotations, it keeps getting implied that I am in full agreement. My limited agreement is that as a single entity, God, eternal or not, would have reached a point beyond which it was impossible to grow without the presence of another entity. DHW reworded it as boredom, and I got tired of arguing the point. He can call it what he likes. However, I still think boredom is the wrong word.
David: Thanks for the clarification of your view. I certainly agree about the concept of boredom is totally wrong, as it is a humanizing view of God. I also do not think God has a 'need to grow'. I view him as all He can be or needs to be.
Tony: His name literally means: I am/will be what I am/will be.
This implies that he can change, or grow, to be what he needs to be in order to accomplish his purpose.
David: When God appears in the burning bush He says I am what I am. My encyclopedic dictionary which is part of the Masoretic text OT I have does not give that definition of God as you do. He is Lord or eternal, and eternal is considered the most proper . Again we are humans who try to describe Him. Another Jewish source I have describes the words for God as meaning Lord, Master, ruler and judge. I see no sense that He needs to grow.
that was from a Jewish translation, ironically.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 28, 2018, 15:34 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Thanks for the clarification of your view. I certainly agree about the concept of boredom is totally wrong, as it is a humanizing view of God. I also do not think God has a 'need to grow'. I view him as all He can be or needs to be.
Tony: His name literally means: I am/will be what I am/will be.Tony: This implies that he can change, or grow, to be what he needs to be in order to accomplish his purpose.
David: When God appears in the burning bush He says I am what I am. My encyclopedic dictionary which is part of the Masoretic text OT I have does not give that definition of God as you do. He is Lord or eternal, and eternal is considered the most proper . Again we are humans who try to describe Him. Another Jewish source I have describes the words for God as meaning Lord, Master, ruler and judge. I see no sense that He needs to grow.
Tony: that was from a Jewish translation, ironically.
Thanks for looking at Jewish commentary. Put two Jews in a room in discussion and there will be ten opinions. The problem is interpreting ancient Hebrew in the OT is the lack of base words and the need to translate by inference from the context. I'm presenting what I was taught and the use of two sources I have in my library.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 22:06 (2032 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Also, I wanted to note that you are mischaracterizing my view(and the biblical account) of the order/method of creation. I've stated explicitly that in that particular view, the father created the son, and then together they created everything else.
DHW: Perhaps I misunderstood your statement on 16 September that “His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God.” I thought Genesis told us your God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and man, and I don’t recall any mention of the son in that account, or of a construction crew.
As an author, you should know better than to judge a book by the preface. Read the book.
TONY: As to 'boredom' and 'spectacle', they are poor terms that do not do justice to the significance of the situation or the events that transpired. In a sense, you come across as if you are downplaying everything except your own pet theories, which David also pointed out when he said you continuously downgrade nature's complexity.DHW; You have accepted boredom as a possible starting point, I regard life is hugely significant, I have never downgraded nature’s complexity, and theories concerning your God’s purposes do not downplay anything – they are hypothetical explanations, not judgements.
In an extremely limited sense of the word.
TONY: As for the mechanisms for all of our different emotions, yes, they were designed by him, but again, I ask why. Spectacle is not a good answer because it has no real explanatory power. It has no explanatory power because these mechanisms and the way they maneuver organismal behaviors all point to purposes of protecting an organism, encouraging purposeful growth, or building social bonds. […] Why would a god indifferent to suffering bother designing such a mechanism?
DHW: Each life continues for a limited period; each organism is capable of different responses and behaviours. If your God exists, I suggest this is what he WANTED to create, and his motive was to provide a spectacle to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation. This can also entail learning, as say below. I don’t know why you feel this has no explanatory power.
TONY: As for how God grows, I imagine that he grows much the same way we do: observation, analysis, study, reflection, then using what was learned to increase his sphere of influence.
DHW: Sounds good to me, except “sphere of influence”. I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.
'Sphere of influence', expansion of power, mastery of his own abilities, whatever you want to call it.
DAVID: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
DHW; And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 02:29 (2032 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: Sounds good to me, except “sphere of influence”. I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.
dhw: 'Sphere of influence', expansion of power, mastery of his own abilities, whatever you want to call it.
DAVID: I repeat: unless viewed as a God with supreme purpose in mind, analysis of how He thinks will be skewed. All He has done has purpose.TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
DHW; And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DHW: Perhaps I misunderstood your statement on 16 September that “His first born son was unique. He was the only thing created directly by God.” I thought Genesis told us your God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and man, and I don’t recall any mention of the son in that account, or of a construction crew.
TONY: As an author, you should know better than to judge a book by the preface. Read the book.
Firstly, it is not one book but many. Secondly, I would not expect the preface to tell me one version, and then the book to tell me another. Thirdly, why should I believe the version proposed by later authors and not the version proposed by an earlier author?
DHW: You have accepted boredom as a possible starting point, I regard life is hugely significant, I have never downgraded nature’s complexity, and theories concerning your God’s purposes do not downplay anything – they are hypothetical explanations, not judgements.
TONY: In an extremely limited sense of the word.
I don’t know which word you are referring to, but being bored with eternal isolation means being bored with eternal isolation. Significant means significant, and an explanation is not a judgement.
DHW: I’d have thought that if he’s capable of creating the universe and life (with or without the son acting as foreman), there aren’t many spheres he can’t influence.
TONY: 'Sphere of influence', expansion of power, mastery of his own abilities, whatever you want to call it.
Mastery of his own abilities and expansion of his own experience sound good to me. Excellent ways of relieving the boredom of eternal isolation.
Dhw: ...if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
You don’t know how God thinks any more than I do, but earlier you agreed that he has our thoughts. That’s good enough for me.
DAVID: All He has done has purpose.
TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
Dhw: And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.
So you agree that he was eternally isolated, but you don’t think he felt it. I must say I’m surprised that a God “who has our thoughts” didn’t have our thoughts. I suggest that, if he exists, he felt it and that’s why he created the universe and life. At least it’s a logical progression.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 27, 2018, 18:48 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: ...if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
You don’t know how God thinks any more than I do, but earlier you agreed that he has our thoughts. That’s good enough for me.
DAVID: All He has done has purpose.
TONY: I don't disagree, and neither does the bible.
Dhw: And nor do I. If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have had a purpose: perhaps to break his eternal isolation by providing a spectacle. This might provide him with new experiences from which to learn (Tony’s proposal).
DAVID: I don't think God feels any sort of 'eternal isolation'. That would clearly be only a human feeling. In my view He has been around eternally before anything else.
dhw: So you agree that he was eternally isolated, but you don’t think he felt it. I must say I’m surprised that a God “who has our thoughts” didn’t have our thoughts. I suggest that, if he exists, he felt it and that’s why he created the universe and life. At least it’s a logical progression.
Of course He has our thoughts, and your logic is human logic. If He has existed forever and has the power of creation, I assume He has His own way of thinking about Himself. When Adler says He is a person like no other person, Adler does not define His personality any further, because no one can.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 24, 2018, 23:33 (2034 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE
dhw: Don’t you find the material world interesting, with its vast variety of life forms, its ever changing nature, the extraordinary products of human consciousness? Anyway, do tell us why you think he created material life.
TONY: Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value".
dhw: You quoted me as saying: “….perhaps I should not use the word “entertainment”, as people do tend to associate it with amusement”. Let me then state with all seriousness that I regard the relief of isolation and boredom as an extremely serious purpose. Indeed loneliness and lack of any kind of occupation are a huge human problem in our day and age. I can well imagine that the prospect of eternity spent in isolation with nothing to do would be pretty unbearable. Can't you?
TONY: Yes, which is why I stated that I agreed with that as first cause, but not as an ongoing cause.
dhw: Why do you think eternity wouldn’t require an ongoing process to prevent the return of boring isolation?
DHW: And I really don’t see why you insist that Christ was his only direct creation, especially when Genesis tell us that it was God who dunnit!
Tony: Because you criticize what you have not bothered to study or learn. In reference to Christ:
Col 1:15-17 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for
Him etc. (No room!).dhw: Why don’t you quote Genesis 1 and 2? No mention there of the Son. Plenty of God made this and that.
DHW:... Life as we know it contains as much pain as it does joy, and it is faith not reason which enables some people to believe in a loving, caring God.
TONY: Oh, life does indeed contain pain. I've never questioned that. I do question the source of that pain, however. What my observations show is a virtual paradise that has been decimated by people unwilling to follow directions. Why would I blame God for that?
dhw: I wasn’t asking you to blame God. I was pointing out that it requires faith to believe in a loving, caring God.
Yes it requires faith and He does not have to be loving or caring. And the New Testament has made assumptions not agreed to by those who interpret the OT as their primary Bible. Further unless God's personality and thought pattern are not viewed in the realm of pure purpose, the interpretation will not be accurate.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:26 (2037 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE
dhw: Our subject is purpose, not design. Thank you again for supporting the spectacle theory. I’m sorry you have not commented on the reason for your God wanting to prove himself.
DAVID: God is purposely hidden. We study Him thru His works and of course He recognizes that approach. We can not separate purpose and design. They are hand in hand, as one implies the other.
Of course. And I am wearing my theist hat as we speculate on what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.
dhw: What in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? [...]
DAVID: 'Pure purpose' is just a way of stating that God is always very purposeful in what HE does at all times.
No problem, then. What we are trying to establish is what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: I'm sure God has His own set of feelings, at which we can only guess, and I'm sure He recognizes ours.
No problem either. It doesn’t tell us what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: […] I view your approach as trying to imagine God from your human point of view. Adler tells me not to do that.
I couldn’t care less what Adler tells you to do. You have offered us several humanizing purposes of your own, which entail a relationship with us, proving himself to us, and – I’m pleased to say – providing a spectacle for himself.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
dhw: [..] [b]why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?[/b] If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
TONY: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
Where do you get all these words from? Certainly not from me. David suggested he wanted to prove himself to us, and I asked if David thought he was that vain. I did not say he was vain, and I have never used any of the other words you attribute to me except “bored”. We are discussing your God’s possible purpose. I suggest that he was tired of being on his own and therefore wanted to create something to relieve the boredom. You have suggested that he wanted to grow and develop, and therefore needed to end his isolation. I see virtually no difference. There is absolutely nothing negative in this. I asked you why the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating was more trivial than your God aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”, and you answered “When I can articulate that I will.” You have answered by putting negative words in my mouth that i have never used.
Note that bored and vain were the only direct quotes I used, and they are visible from your 'mouth' in this very conversation. When David mentions that he offered proof through works, you jumped to "Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?" Sure, you threw a question mark on it, but the implication was not made by David. How does one offering proof of ability and purpose correlate to vanity? Why should an individual that created something not be rightly proud of their creation, and want the credit for having created it? Is that vanity?
Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value". What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 21, 2018, 21:05 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
PART ONE
TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
TONY: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
dhw: Where do you get all these words from? Certainly not from me. David suggested he wanted to prove himself to us, and I asked if David thought he was that vain. I did not say he was vain, and I have never used any of the other words you attribute to me except “bored”. We are discussing your God’s possible purpose. I suggest that he was tired of being on his own and therefore wanted to create something to relieve the boredom. You have suggested that he wanted to grow and develop, and therefore needed to end his isolation. I see virtually no difference. There is absolutely nothing negative in this. I asked you why the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating was more trivial than your God aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”, and you answered “When I can articulate that I will.” You have answered by putting negative words in my mouth that i have never used.
Tony: Note that bored and vain were the only direct quotes I used, and they are visible from your 'mouth' in this very conversation. When David mentions that he offered proof through works, you jumped to "Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?" Sure, you threw a question mark on it, but the implication was not made by David. How does one offering proof of ability and purpose correlate to vanity? Why should an individual that created something not be rightly proud of their creation, and want the credit for having created it? Is that vanity?Saying that he did it purely for entertainment, amusement, or as a cure for boredom are all forms of capriciousness or frivolity, literally "not having any serious purpose or value". What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?
I think Tony has offered an excellent answer and a proper description of the humanizing you persist in presenting. I don't think you realize how it comes across. You have to think of God at a different level than you do.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:42 (2037 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE
DAVID: 'Pure purpose' is just a way of stating that God is always very purposeful in what HE does at all times.dhw: No problem, then. What we are trying to establish is what his purpose might have been.
DAVID: I'm sure God has His own set of feelings, at which we can only guess, and I'm sure He recognizes ours.
dhw: No problem either. It doesn’t tell us what his purpose might have been.
Once again look at the results. We are here against all odds. We are obviously a major purpose.
dhw: [..] [b]why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain?[/b] If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?TONY: perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
DHW: Ah, so God created all these weird and wonderful creatures that came and went hundreds of millions of years before we came on the scene, in order to stop us from believing he didn’t make them. I really can’t follow this.
TONY: I was responding to the bolded text. As usual, you kind of paint even the idea of God in very negative tones. He's "bored", "vain" , egotistical, cowardly, apparently knows less than us, is capricious, and frivolous even.
dhw: Where do you get all these words from? Certainly not from me. David suggested he wanted to prove himself to us, and I asked if David thought he was that vain. I did not say he was vain, and I have never used any of the other words you attribute to me except “bored”. We are discussing your God’s possible purpose. I suggest that he was tired of being on his own and therefore wanted to create something to relieve the boredom. You have suggested that he wanted to grow and develop, and therefore needed to end his isolation. I see virtually no difference. There is absolutely nothing negative in this. I asked you why the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating was more trivial than your God aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”, and you answered “When I can articulate that I will.” You have answered by putting negative words in my mouth that i have never used.
TONY: I've stated repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, that the life forms that have inhabited the earth at every stage were there to essentially terraform the earth itself.
dhw: David suggests that he “wanted to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles he could create”. Sounds feasible to me. I must confess I find it difficult to believe that every single life form extant and extinct was essential to “terraform” (?) the earth.
TONY: Yes, there is a purpose outside humanity, though we are part of it. This is testable, observable fact. Even scientists don't disagree with the fact that all life lends itself to the overall balance of life itself on this planet including the maintenance of the atmospheric weather etc. etc.
dhw: The rest is fine with me.
But you always downgrade the importance of my balance of nature statements.
Continued…
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 01:59 (2039 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
DHW: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
Aside from the distinct possibility of simply being too much energy for our bodies to handle.. perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 02:48 (2039 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw: I do not see how your humanizing claim that your God wanted a relationship with us fits in with all the comings and goings of billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. I cannot see any logic in the belief that if your God exists, he designed all these life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Initially you claimed that this was THE purpose, but have over time reduced “the” to “one main” purpose. Please tell us what you believe to be the other main purposes for your God’s creation of the universe and life.
DAVID: Perhaps He used evolution to see how many strange creatures with unusual lifestyles He could create, which I have presented. That would provide a better fit for your spectacle theory.
dhw: It would indeed. Thank you for supporting my spectacle hypothesis. So much more logical than trying to gear them all to the production of Homo sapiens' brain.
DAVID: Exhibiting His powers of creation to offer proof of Himself to us, the observers who see proof of Him in his works.
DHW: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us? Does he want us to tell him how clever he is? Is he that humanly vain? If so, why can’t he also be that humanly bored that he wants to create strange creatures, including us, to relieve his isolation (as suggested in your first response)?
Tony: Aside from the distinct possibility of simply being too much energy for our bodies to handle.. perhaps the reason is because he wants us to listen. Not because he is that vain, but because when you give credit where it doesn't belong, you are believing a lie, and will inevitably make a mistake.
dhw is bent on humanizing God in most of his thought pattern about God. I see God as pure purpose and us as a main result. I don't view God as ever approaching thought on a human level.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Monday, September 17, 2018, 15:21 (2042 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. […]TONY: As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything.
dhw: You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose:
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
DAVID: But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
dhw: Yes indeed. Already agreed. And that is why at Tony's instigation we embarked on a discussion of what your God’s purpose might have been. But now you don’t want to discuss his purpose, you just want to discuss design.
If you will accept that one main purpose was the creation of humans to relate to God, it all fits together. To create life the complexity of biochemistry had to be designed. Design requires a designer with purpose, which is all you will accept. Your purpose of spectacle is trivial and humanizing God. I know that as a playwright you are very impressed with spectacle. The Grand Canyon is much more impressive than any play I've seen, although I've enjoyed your writings.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Friday, September 14, 2018, 15:29 (2045 days ago) @ dhw
dHW: In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
TONY: It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.
dhw: The greater the spectacle, the greater the relief and indeed the satisfaction of creating something so fascinating. Besides, why is it more trivial than your God and his spiritual “spawn” aspiring to some nebulous kind of “fullness”?
David: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
dhw: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion .
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
DAVID: I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion.
Correction: Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"? Whether he started out with the sole intention of creating conscious humans is another subject, but your observation does not answer Tony’s question – it is part of the question. Why did God create EVERYTHING, which includes the universe, life and humans?
TONY: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.
DAVID: I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Saturday, September 15, 2018, 19:06 (2043 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
DAVID: I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion.
dhw: Correction: Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"? Whether he started out with the sole intention of creating conscious humans is another subject, but your observation does not answer Tony’s question – it is part of the question. Why did God create EVERYTHING, which includes the universe, life and humans?
Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
TONY: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.DAVID: I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 04:08 (2043 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
DAVID: I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion.
dhw: Correction: Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"? Whether he started out with the sole intention of creating conscious humans is another subject, but your observation does not answer Tony’s question – it is part of the question. Why did God create EVERYTHING, which includes the universe, life and humans?
Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
TONY: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.DAVID: I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
David: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
Most of them never will, unless he invites them for tea. As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything. The original context for the point was in looking at localized purpose of individual species within a biome. What do their actions DO? What impact do they have on the environment? How do their actions alter/maintain the balance of their biome/earth?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 05:10 (2043 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
DAVID: I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion.
dhw: Correction: Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"? Whether he started out with the sole intention of creating conscious humans is another subject, but your observation does not answer Tony’s question – it is part of the question. Why did God create EVERYTHING, which includes the universe, life and humans?
Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
TONY: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.DAVID: I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
David: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
tony: Most of them never will, unless he invites them for tea. As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything. The original context for the point was in looking at localized purpose of individual species within a biome. What do their actions DO? What impact do they have on the environment? How do their actions alter/maintain the balance of their biome/earth?
And I keep presenting studies on how important the balanced of nature happens to be
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 16:14 (2043 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
DHW: How do you know how God thinks? According to you, we have a soul that is part of your God’s own consciousness. Some folk believe he made us “in his image”. And according to you he created us because he wants a relationship with us (how human is that!). You believe in God and you keep insisting that the universe is full of purpose, but how can you possibly consider what that “purpose” is and yet not consider what is in his mind? So please tell us, what do you think is the purpose of the universe and life?
DAVID: I've said I don't know how He thinks, but you have given Him a spectator purpose! Watching fun and games? My God is much more serious than your imagined God. We've discussed God's purpose before. It was to create fully conscious humans in my opinion.
dhw: Correction: Your IMAGINED God is much more serious than my imagined God. Why do you trivialize the spectacle as “fun and games”? Tony thinks God wanted to grow and develop (I ask why, and suggest that he may have been bored with his isolated existence). By creating life he will have learned what it is to love, to hate, to enjoy, to suffer, to win, to lose...none of which he would have experienced all on his own as an eternal blob of pure energy. Is this "fun and games"? Whether he started out with the sole intention of creating conscious humans is another subject, but your observation does not answer Tony’s question – it is part of the question. Why did God create EVERYTHING, which includes the universe, life and humans?
Yes, we both imagine, because actually knowing God is not possible, since He is hidden. But the most mature way of discovering God is to look at His works, which is the Quran approach. We humans are the pinnacle of his evolutionary work, therefore a major purpose, but as Tony says below, not the entire purpose.
TONY: Life and growth ARE part of the purpose. Is that not a worth purpose in and of itself, to live and grow? Still, I have said that I believe there to be many layers of purpose, and I don't claim to know them all.DAVID: I'm with Tony. Giving life's experience is a purposeful gift. Anonymous charity is the most worthy.
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
David: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
tony: Most of them never will, unless he invites them for tea. As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything. The original context for the point was in looking at localized purpose of individual species within a biome. What do their actions DO? What impact do they have on the environment? How do their actions alter/maintain the balance of their biome/earth?
David: And I keep presenting studies on how important the balanced of nature happens to be
Indeed you do. Something has to maintain that balance. In the articles you post, particularly those of the human body, we see all these checks and balances. I am suggesting that a close look at the broader ecosystem will show the exact same thing on a larger scale. I.E. The Earth has needs, and the instinct based organisms that live upon it serve those needs through their default behaviors whether they realize it or not.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
TONY: Most of them never will, unless he invites them for tea. As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything. The original context for the point was in looking at localized purpose of individual species within a biome. What do their actions DO? What impact do they have on the environment? How do their actions alter/maintain the balance of their biome/earth?
DAVID: And I keep presenting studies on how important the balance of nature happens to be.
The balance of nature is important for the survival of whichever species survive. When it changes, some of them do not survive. This is self-evident. As for the complexity of life, it has never been an issue between us, and for me is a major reason for not embracing atheism. You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose, which was the following exchange on Sunday 2 September at 14.11:
Dhw: (to David): I don’t think you have ever quite understood the reason why I am an agnostic. The explanations of life’s history offered by both theists and atheists are so full of Cambrian-style gaps that I cannot place my faith in any of them. I look for alternative hypotheses, such as cellular intelligence and a form of panpsychism, though even these are too tenuous for me to believe in. etc. etc.
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 15:22 (2043 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I join you both in regarding life as a wonderful gift and as a purpose in itself, and I am fully aware of and grateful for all the beautiful experiences I have been privileged to enjoy, just as I am fully aware of the painful experiences I have had and of the painful experiences I have been fortunate enough not to have had. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, whether there is a purpose for “everything”, and if there is - which depends on there being a God - what his purpose might be.
DAVID: We have long left the issue of a proof of God just by looking at purpose. For me, the proof lies in the complexity of living beings, which have no reason to be here unless designed. As far as I am concerned there would be no life without a designer God. How much complexity has to be determined by science before it i s accepted as overwhelming evidence God must exist?
TONY: Most of them never will, unless he invites them for tea. As for purpose, DHW made it all about God's purpose for creating everything. The original context for the point was in looking at localized purpose of individual species within a biome. What do their actions DO? What impact do they have on the environment? How do their actions alter/maintain the balance of their biome/earth?
DAVID: And I keep presenting studies on how important the balance of nature happens to be.
dhw: The balance of nature is important for the survival of whichever species survive. When it changes, some of them do not survive. This is self-evident. As for the complexity of life, it has never been an issue between us, and for me is a major reason for not embracing atheism. You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose, which was the following exchange on Sunday 2 September at 14.11:
Dhw: (to David): I don’t think you have ever quite understood the reason why I am an agnostic. The explanations of life’s history offered by both theists and atheists are so full of Cambrian-style gaps that I cannot place my faith in any of them. I look for alternative hypotheses, such as cellular intelligence and a form of panpsychism, though even these are too tenuous for me to believe in. etc. etc.
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
dhw: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
But that is the exact point you always miss. Design is always done with purpose of producing a meaningful result in individuality or in process. Design indicates a goal and must have a purposeful designer.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 17:12 (2042 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And I keep presenting studies on how important the balance of nature happens to be.
DHW: The balance of nature is important for the survival of whichever species survive. When it changes, some of them do not survive. This is self-evident. As for the complexity of life, it has never been an issue between us, and for me is a major reason for not embracing atheism. You have both either forgotten or deliberately ignored the starting point of this discussion on the subject of purpose, which was the following exchange on Sunday 2 September at 14.11:
Dhw: (to David): I don’t think you have ever quite understood the reason why I am an agnostic. The explanations of life’s history offered by both theists and atheists are so full of Cambrian-style gaps that I cannot place my faith in any of them. I look for alternative hypotheses, such as cellular intelligence and a form of panpsychism, though even these are too tenuous for me to believe in. etc. etc.
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.
DHW: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
Design and purpose go hand in hand, particularly when you are talking about the purposes of the designer.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Sunday, September 16, 2018, 18:27 (2042 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: Just a thought, but what seems to be missing in this thought process is 'purpose'. Evolution requires no purpose, and offers no meaning. I think something deep in humanity rejects this purposeless idea of existence. Yet we do not extend the idea of purpose beyond our own existence to say, what is the purpose of everything, not just our purpose. We can recognize the need for a designer to account for the complexity, but forget that designers do not design without purpose.DHW: That is why I shifted the discussion to this thread. You wanted to talk about purpose, and now that we are talking about purpose, you want to talk about design!
Tony: Design and purpose go hand in hand, particularly when you are talking about the purposes of the designer.
As I've observed, they must go hand in hand. There are only chance or design, and chance never has purpose.
philosophy of science: meaning and functions
by David Turell , Thursday, September 13, 2018, 15:49 (2046 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: You talk of reproduction and spawn, the first direct creation and growing awareness, and you have agreed previously that the first life forms were single cells. If I have misunderstood the logic of this, I’m sorry, but part of our discussion entails clarifying our terms, so do please explain what you meant by the first direct creation, the spawn and the spawn’s growing awareness.
TONY: …perhaps the most clarifying statement I can make is this: I agree that the first carbon based life were in the form of single celled organisms. That doesn't preclude the possibility of life in other forms, such as living energy.
Then I think it’s a little unfair of you to have accused me of misrepresenting your arguments. You could hardly have expected me to realize you were talking about unknown forms of life!
DAVID: I hope you will explain what you mean by 'living energy'.
TONY: Ok, sorry about the delay. It's been a busy week.
So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
• They are responsive to stimuli.
• They reproduce.
• They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
• They grow in some form over time.
• They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.
TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.
I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.
TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.
No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?
DAVID: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.
TONY: Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.
dhw: I don’t have any problem at all with the idea that if God exists, he is a form of energy. And I don’t have any problem with the idea that if he exists, he created the first forms of life known to us, i.e. cells. I do have a problem with the assumption that there are other forms of life we know nothing about, and therefore we can ignore those forms we do know about. But our subject anyway is meaning, purpose and function. You complained that we did not ask for the purpose of everything, as opposed to just our (human) purpose. Your answer seems to be that God is energy, and there may be other forms of life that are not carbon based (presumably also “spawned” in some way from God’s energy), and the purpose of those (unknown) forms of life is to achieve “fullness”. I appreciate that we are grappling with difficult ideas here, but I hope you will understand why I find some of this so confusing. In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.
My objection to your spectacle hypothesis is you have draped God in human clothing. You don't think like God does. None of us do.
philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 18:55 (1122 days ago) @ dhw
The future of physics debated:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12245
"IAS director Robbert Dijkgraaf will be giving the CERN colloquium tomorrow, with the title The Future of Fundamental Physics. Here’s the abstract:
"The reports of the death of physics are greatly exaggerated. Instead, I would argue, we are living in a golden era and the best is yet to come. Not only did the past decades see some amazing breakthrough discoveries and show us the many unknowns in our current understanding, but more importantly, science in general is moving from studying `what is’ to `what could be.’ There will be many more fundamental laws of nature hidden within the endless number of physical systems we could fabricate out of the currently known building blocks. This demands an open mind about the concepts of unity and progress in physics.
"I don’t know of any “reports of the death of physics”, but there are a lot of reports of the death of string theory (Dijkgraaf’s specialty) and of the larger subject of attempts to go beyond the Standard Model, experimentally or theoretically. CERN yesterday announced new results from LHCb testing lepton universality (a prediction of the Standard Model). LHCb sees a ratio of decays to muons vs. electrons in a certain process that is off from the Standard Model prediction by 3.1 sigma.
***
"Dijkgraaf’s claim that “we are living in a golden era” is an odd one to be making at CERN, which has seen some true golden eras and is now facing very real challenges. Even odder is arguing at CERN that the bright future of science is due to it “moving from studying `what is’ to `what could be.’” CERN is at its core a place devoted to investigating “what is” at the most fundamental level. I’m curious to hear what those at CERN make of his talk.
"Dijkgraaf’s abstract to me summarizes the attitude that the best way to deal with the current problems of HEP theory is to change the definition of the goals of the field, thereby defining failure away. The failure of heavily promoted ideas about string theory and supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model is rebranded a success, a discovery that there’s no longer any point to pursue the traditional goals of the subject. Instead, the way forward to a brighter future is to give up on unification and trying to do better than the Standard Model. One is then free to redefine “fundamental physics” as whatever theorists manage to come up with of some relevance to still healthy fields like condensed matter and hot new topics like machine learning and quantum computing. I can see why Dijkgraaf feels this is the way forward for the IAS, but whether and how it provides a way forward for CERN is another question."
Comment: It is the same old issue. We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis