God can make infinitely more special/valuable things than this universe

[Belacqua]

Does the language of teleonomy tells us what it is good to do? That is, does it tell us what thing or action has a greater value than any other? 

Normally "value" refers to this sort of thing. 

The purpose of the vacuum cleaner is to keep your carpet clean. Whether a clean carpet is good or not is a value question.

Remember that teleonomy alludes to quite real phenomena which we may quantify in terms of mathematical or physics papers/equations/notations.

• So, as Dawkins mentions, things having survival values may occur based on pressures afforded by nature, in relation to degrees of freedom afforded by an organism's biological structure.
  

For example, if we think in terms of entropy, and analyse the degrees of freedom afforded by human intelligence, we can probably predict that a grand purpose humans may have would be to replicate universes.

• And in fact, a pHd psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that the purpose of the human species may be to replicate universes, i.e. future humans may be appropriate replicating factors for Lee Smolin's fecund universes. (See "Cosmological Evolution and the Future of Life")
  
• Lee Smolin is a physicist that proposed "Cosmological Natural Selection" or "fecund universes", which states that universes basically occur in large numbers, in order to deliver fined tuned parameters, where the most successfully occurring universes occur with black holes. This would be similar to biological natural selection, but on a cosmic scale.
  
• Michael Price hypothesizes instead of black holes, that future humans may be better replicating factors, that may create universes to inhabit in the scenario of big freezes or other potential ends of the universe.
  

Notably, the objective type of purpose above would transcend the desires of individual humans, as it seeks to be informed by objective measures, such as scientific principles in entropy.

This sounds pertinent enough to be a thread by itself. Will do so later maybe.

It's strange to talk to you, because you just say what you want even though it's unrelated to anything I've asked.

[blue grey brain]

Remember that teleonomy alludes to quite real phenomena which we may quantify in terms of mathematical or physics papers/equations/notations.

• So, as Dawkins mentions, things having survival values may occur based on pressures afforded by nature, in relation to degrees of freedom afforded by an organism's biological structure.
  

For example, if we think in terms of entropy, and analyse the degrees of freedom afforded by human intelligence, we can probably predict that a grand purpose humans may have would be to replicate universes.

• And in fact, a pHd psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that the purpose of the human species may be to replicate universes, i.e. future humans may be appropriate replicating factors for Lee Smolin's fecund universes. (See "Cosmological Evolution and the Future of Life")
  
• Lee Smolin is a physicist that proposed "Cosmological Natural Selection" or "fecund universes", which states that universes basically occur in large numbers, in order to deliver fined tuned parameters, where the most successfully occurring universes occur with black holes. This would be similar to biological natural selection, but on a cosmic scale.
  
• Michael Price hypothesizes instead of black holes, that future humans may be better replicating factors, that may create universes to inhabit in the scenario of big freezes or other potential ends of the universe.
  

Notably, the objective type of purpose above would transcend the desires of individual humans, as it seeks to be informed by objective measures, such as scientific principles in entropy.

This sounds pertinent enough to be a thread by itself. Will do so later maybe.

It's strange to talk to you, because you just say what you want even though it's unrelated to anything I've asked.

We've been down a road where you said you didn't see connections before, to which I later drew those connections clearly, and you agreed.

Is it possible you're not reading the things properly in relation to your queries?

[blue grey brain]

Remember that teleonomy alludes to quite real phenomena which we may quantify in terms of mathematical or physics papers/equations/notations.

• So, as Dawkins mentions, things having survival values may occur based on pressures afforded by nature, in relation to degrees of freedom afforded by an organism's biological structure.
  

For example, if we think in terms of entropy, and analyse the degrees of freedom afforded by human intelligence, we can probably predict that a grand purpose humans may have would be to replicate universes.

• And in fact, a pHd psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that the purpose of the human species may be to replicate universes, i.e. future humans may be appropriate replicating factors for Lee Smolin's fecund universes. (See "Cosmological Evolution and the Future of Life")
  
• Lee Smolin is a physicist that proposed "Cosmological Natural Selection" or "fecund universes", which states that universes basically occur in large numbers, in order to deliver fined tuned parameters, where the most successfully occurring universes occur with black holes. This would be similar to biological natural selection, but on a cosmic scale.
  
• Michael Price hypothesizes instead of black holes, that future humans may be better replicating factors, that may create universes to inhabit in the scenario of big freezes or other potential ends of the universe.
  

Notably, the objective type of purpose above would transcend the desires of individual humans, as it seeks to be informed by objective measures, such as scientific principles in entropy.

This sounds pertinent enough to be a thread by itself. Will do so later maybe.

It's strange to talk to you, because you just say what you want even though it's unrelated to anything I've asked.

As post 28 underlines, we've been down a road before, where you said you didn't see some connections, to which I later spelled out connections, which you agreed you missed.

Is it possible that you're not properly reading my responses in relation to your queries?

[Belacqua]

It's strange to talk to you, because you just say what you want even though it's unrelated to anything I've asked.

As post 28 underlines, we've been down a road before, where you said you didn't see some connections, to which I later spelled out connections, which you agreed you missed.

Is it possible that you're not properly reading my responses in relation to your queries?

I didn't agree that I'd missed anything. 

I said that you were conflating purpose and value, and that in fact these are different things. You haven't addressed that yet.

[GrandizerII]

Sock? Or?

He reminds me of someone familiar.

Oh yes ... PGJ. At least come up with a totally different style of posting for once.

[blue grey brain]

As post 28 underlines, we've been down a road before, where you said you didn't see some connections, to which I later spelled out connections, which you agreed you missed.

Is it possible that you're not properly reading my responses in relation to your queries?

I didn't agree that I'd missed anything. 

I said that you were conflating purpose and value, and that in fact these are different things. You haven't addressed that yet.

I did address that.

I pointed out that Dawkins is the one that originally cites "survival value" as "archeo purpose", in his youtube video "the purpose of purpose" on minute 29:25.

Also, you asked about what would be "good" to do purpose wise in post 29.  In post 30, I gave a detailed response about what a species may "optimally" do, given constraints in nature, including environmental pressures, and biological limitations. Those "optimal" actions can be a measure of the "value" you seem to seek.

[Belacqua]

I didn't agree that I'd missed anything. 

I said that you were conflating purpose and value, and that in fact these are different things. You haven't addressed that yet.

I did address that.

I pointed out that Dawkins is the one that originally cites "survival value" as "archeo purpose", in his youtube video "the purpose of purpose" on minute 29:25.

If something has survival value, that means it helps the thing survive. 

If you look at what I said, I am saying that value is about worth. Is it GOOD for thing to survive? 

In the OP you suggest that God could have made more valuable things in the universe. I have been trying to ask you "valuable in what way"? Did you intend from the beginning to say that God could have given more traits with survival value to something or someone?

[blue grey brain]

I did address that.

I pointed out that Dawkins is the one that originally cites "survival value" as "archeo purpose", in his youtube video "the purpose of purpose" on minute 29:25.

If something has survival value, that means it helps the thing survive. 

If you look at what I said, I am saying that value is about worth. Is it GOOD for thing to survive? 

In the OP you suggest that God could have made more valuable things in the universe. I have been trying to ask you "valuable in what way"? Did you intend from the beginning to say that God could have given more traits with survival value to something or someone?

I am an atheist, so I don't subscribe to any God story.

In response 21, I was simply indicating that there were scientific/atheistic means of describing purpose, in response to your reply in post 2, which seemed to portray that no intrinsic purpose was describable by Science.

[Belacqua]

If something has survival value, that means it helps the thing survive. 

If you look at what I said, I am saying that value is about worth. Is it GOOD for thing to survive? 

In the OP you suggest that God could have made more valuable things in the universe. I have been trying to ask you "valuable in what way"? Did you intend from the beginning to say that God could have given more traits with survival value to something or someone?

I am an atheist, so I don't subscribe to any God story.

In response 21, I was simply indicating that there were scientific/atheistic means of describing purpose, in response to your reply in post 2, which seemed to portray that no intrinsic purpose was describable by Science.

It's impossible to talk with you, so I'll leave it here.

[blue grey brain]

I am an atheist, so I don't subscribe to any God story.

In response 21, I was simply indicating that there were scientific/atheistic means of describing purpose, in response to your reply in post 2, which seemed to portray that no intrinsic purpose was describable by Science.

It's impossible to talk with you, so I'll leave it here.

Getting back to the OP though:

I make a simple point; if the theist doesn't take this universe's creation to be the end of God's supposedly unending power, then the theist ought to expect that God would have created far better things, in whatever ways God would decide to select.