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

[blue grey brain]

This universe is by far, theistically describable as not the best God could create,

Maybe we should clarify some things first -- I'm not sure what you're saying here.

When you say that our universe is "not the best God could create," what standards are you using to say that it could have been better? What is better and worse, when we pass judgment on universes? 

I can certainly agree that it could have been better for me. I mean, I'm having stomach problems these days. But that would risk exaggerating my importance in the scheme of things. 

and in theistic theory, God would have in his supposed omnipotency, created far better, far more valuable things.

Which "theistic theory" are you thinking of here? There are a lot of them. Some of them attempt explanations as to why a certain amount of human suffering is actually better, universe-wise. 

And value...? Most atheists think that value is assigned by humans. It's not an intrinsic aspect of the universe. So how do we say with confidence that from God's point of view the universe could have had more value? Maybe more value for me, sure, but I'm not God.

Actually, there's a recent concept called teleonomy, which talks about nature using purpose driven language.
The militant atheist Richard Dawkins recently introduced archeo and neo purpose as well.
So Science also says something about purpose or function. Maybe I'll make a next post on that one day.

---

BGB, simple. Because for those theists who've swallowed the prepackaged/for mass consumption version of what "god" is, then it is because it says so right there in the bible.

Do not question the bible or its legitimacy. It was never meant to be criticized! Otherwise we may as well just watch the emporer and his clothes cartoons instead.

I'm not arguing against this universe being special in the Christian doctrine, I'm simply pointing out that it wouldn't be as special as theists would like to think, in fact, it would be infinitely less special than the infinitely better things the supposedly omnipotent God would have already created.

[Minimalist]

I don't blame people being dicks on God.

Neither do I, Tacky.  But probably for a different reason.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I feel I should point out in reading through the thread that one of the attributes/aspects of a proposed deity is that it is;

"All loving".

Such a claim does not match with a reality of millions of years of, effectivly, instituted suffering (Again, based on the idea of an "All loving diety" being in existence)

I do not think both things are compatible.

[Belacqua]

Actually, there's a recent concept called teleonomy, which talks about nature using purpose driven language.
The militant atheist Richard Dawkins recently introduced archeo and neo purpose as well.
So Science also says something about purpose or function. Maybe I'll make a next post on that one day.

Yes, "teleonomy" has been a topic since at least the 1980s. It's useful as a way to talk about purpose while avoiding potentially misleading ideas of design. 

I don't see how that is related to what I said earlier.

[blue grey brain]

Actually, there's a recent concept called teleonomy, which talks about nature using purpose driven language.
The militant atheist Richard Dawkins recently introduced archeo and neo purpose as well.
So Science also says something about purpose or function. Maybe I'll make a next post on that one day.

Yes, "teleonomy" has been a topic since at least the 1980s. It's useful as a way to talk about purpose while avoiding potentially misleading ideas of design. 

I don't see how that is related to what I said earlier.

You said most atheists think there's no intrinsic value, in post 2. While that may very well be true, this doesn't mean Science doesn't discuss intrinsic value or purpose, as seen in teleonomy.

Unfortunately, most atheists are unaware of teleonomy. We can reasonably use the language of biology or physics and teleonomy to formulate objective scientific value or purpose of many things in nature, including the human species.

• If you look at minute 29:25 of Richard Dawkins' "purpose of purpose" video, he describes things with "survival values" or intrinsic "archeo" purposes. This concerns teleonomy, the same topic to which you supposedly detected no relation. You're welcome.
  

[Belacqua]

You said most atheists think there's no intrinsic value, in post 2. While that may very well be true, this doesn't mean Science doesn't discuss intrinsic value or purpose, as seen in teleonomy.

Unfortunately, most atheists are unaware of teleonomy. We can reasonably use the language of biology or physics and teleonomy to formulate objective scientific value or purpose of many things in nature, including the human species.

• If you look at minute 29:25 of Richard Dawkins' "purpose of purpose" video, he describes things with "survival values" or intrinsic "archeo" purposes. This concerns teleonomy, the same topic to which you supposedly detected no relation. 
  

I understand now. Thanks for explaining.

To me, purpose and value are different things. You seem to be putting them together here, if I'm not mistaken.

Purpose is what a thing is for. Value is what it's worth. 

Teleonomy allows us to makes sentences like, "we have lungs in order to get oxygen out of the air and into our blood, etc." That's their purpose. 

A statement of value might say that we should preserve or protect something even if it doesn't have a purpose. Or that one purpose is more valuable than another. I think it's obvious that talking about things in nature demands talking about their purposes, but evaluating their values is generally not thought to be a scientific subject, because it can't be empirically repeatably tested apart from people's desires. 

You're welcome.

This sounds like snark.

[tackattack]

Just because 2 scientist don't agree on the value of something does not invalidate the something. Drawing a conclusion to an experiment can be simply restating the facts to prove the hypothesis or can include a subjective interpreted value as well. A society as a whole, at any one point in time to ascribe values to things.
Think about this.. hypothesis: is it plausible to land on Mars? there's lots of value assessments that would go into that as well as objective evidence.

[blue grey brain]

You said most atheists think there's no intrinsic value, in post 2. While that may very well be true, this doesn't mean Science doesn't discuss intrinsic value or purpose, as seen in teleonomy.

Unfortunately, most atheists are unaware of teleonomy. We can reasonably use the language of biology or physics and teleonomy to formulate objective scientific value or purpose of many things in nature, including the human species.

• If you look at minute 29:25 of Richard Dawkins' "purpose of purpose" video, he describes things with "survival values" or intrinsic "archeo" purposes. This concerns teleonomy, the same topic to which you supposedly detected no relation. 
  

I understand now. Thanks for explaining.

Purpose is what a thing is for. Value is what it's worth. 

No, I am not the original person who put anything together. Richard Dawkins himself introduces "archeo" purpose as a "survival value".
See the same Dawkins video/speech stamped at minute 29:25, as I mentioned before, in the 'purpose of purpose" video.

Teleonomy allows us to makes sentences like, "we have lungs in order to get oxygen out of the air and into our blood, etc." That's their purpose. 

A statement of value might say that we should preserve or protect something even if it doesn't have a purpose. Or that one purpose is more valuable than another. I think it's obvious that talking about things in nature demands talking about their purposes, but evaluating their values is generally not thought to be a scientific subject, because it can't be empirically repeatably tested apart from people's desires. 

Regardless of what label we use, we can seek to objectively describe the goals wrt functions of species in nature.
In other words teleonomy apart from being a purpose driven language, may be used to describe quite real biological phenomena, which are quantifiable in terms of biology/physics equations/science.

[Belacqua]

Purpose is what a thing is for. Value is what it's worth.

Regardless of what label we use, we can seek to objectively describe the goals wrt functions of species in nature.
In other words teleonomy apart from being a purpose driven language, is being used to describe quite real biological phenomena, which is quantifiable in terms of biology/physics equations/science.

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.

[blue grey brain]

Regardless of what label we use, we can seek to objectively describe the goals wrt functions of species in nature.
In other words teleonomy apart from being a purpose driven language, is being used to describe quite real biological phenomena, which is quantifiable in terms of biology/physics equations/science.

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.