I think this is getting down to uninteresting jockeying for position. I think I understand your position better. Hopefully, you have a better understanding of mine. It is no surprise we don't agree.

However, I find it interesting that it appears we both agree that purpose is a metaphysical concept and, therefore, suggesting purpose is a violation of NOMA, yet this is a source of disagreement between us.

Fascinating.

————————————————————————————————————————-

"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)

I will grant you that I am more active in threads than is healthy or appropriate. You noting this is consistent with my presumption that you are one of my toughest critics.

I'm not questioning the appropriateness of being active in threads. Well, not yours, anyway. With each response here I question my own.
What I was describing was the flavour of your activity.

Me: A shelter in response to what empirical fact?
You: I think of them as empirical observations.

Sure, that's pretty much what empirical means. But, as always, changing the wording does not answer the question. Of course you have the right to refuse questions or answer them as you see fit. But it does highlight a continuing problem in our dialogues.

Me: "No one knows the truth" is self-defeated.
You:Claiming to know the truth is self-delusional.

Your self-delusion is noted.

I deal with the paradox by embracing NOMA.

With a very limited and self-serving embrace.
NOMA doesn't tell us anything about what is true and what is not true, or anything about self-defeating claims about self-delusion.
The only way it can touch the issue is if scientism is true - which, as a self-defeating delusion, it can't be.
You violate your definitions of "purpose" and "NOMA" when you cite as evidence for your embrace of Penrose's model the self-consistent, existing universe, or Behe's analysis in EoE or Dembski's UPB.

I will grant you that I am more active in threads than is healthy or appropriate. You noting this is consistent with my presumption that you are one of my toughest critics.

But to continue the discussion…

A shelter in response to what empirical fact?

I think of them as empirical observations.

"No one knows the truth" is self-defeated.

Claiming to know the truth is self-delusional.

I deal with the paradox by embracing NOMA.

Provoking bias-recognition.

Good one.

Excuse me while t continue my quest to provoke thought.
(including my own)

————————————————————————————————————————-

"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)

It is another shelter with advantages and disadvantages.

A shelter in response to what empirical fact?

I have tried to make clear when I am discussing philosophy ("I don't know the Truth") and when I am discussing science ("Let's do Science! ").

I think you've mistaken "self-contradiction" for "philosophy".
"No one knows the truth" is self-defeated.

I am human. I have biases. All I can do is recognize and deal with them the best that I can.

True for all of us.
Yet you are the one who shows up thread after thread trying to police the discussion (sometimes I think TP stands for Thread Police) by exhorting culture warriors and philosophers to do science, but feels free to bash shields and go to culture war anytime he sees fit (even when "doing science").

Provoking bias-recognition.

I wrote…"Like Socrates, I have come to the conclusion that no one knows the Truth."

You responded with…

Except the Truth of that conclusion, I suppose?

It is another shelter with advantages and disadvantages.

I have tried to make clear when I am discussing philosophy ("I don't know the Truth") and when I am discussing science ("Let's do Science! :mrgreen:").

I am human. I have biases. All I can do is recognize and deal with them the best that I can.

There is a village of shelters and the wise man can see the advantages and disadvantages of all of them, even standing in the rain has advantages and disadvantages.

Political and cultural advantages are obvious to me. For instance, perhaps one doesn't want to associate, or be associated, with those in the shelter. Or perhaps he notices they mostly seem to be looking out the east window and he'd feel uncomfortable in a room with few who want to look out the west window with him. Even though the shelter has such a window.
Or maybe he just has a problem with the builder.
None of these changes the empirical fact that it is raining.

Like Socrates, I have come to the conclusion that no one knows the Truth.

Except the Truth of that conclusion, I suppose?

Oh,
ps.
What "purpose" do you see in the existence of our moon? How does its existence fulfill the universe's need for consistency?

I see much purpose, of course - most of which fulfill requirements for complex life here on earth, and at least one that allows us a greater understanding of the physics underlying our universe.
That would seem to suggest that complex life (man) was an intended goal (purpose) of the universe, as was his ability to understand the universe.

Is that what you were getting at as well?

I have read you wrong then. I thought, having read your comments since your arrival here, that you had avoided coming in out of the rain for some time because the shelters offered weren't philosophically satisfying to you.

Have you noticed the multiple times I have mentioned that I embrace NOMA and that "I don't know the Truth"

Like Socrates, I have come to the conclusion that no one knows the Truth. There is a village of shelters and the wise man can see the advantages and disadvantages of all of them, even standing in the rain has advantages and disadvantages.

————————————————————————————————————————-

"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)

By the way, your crying baby analogy needs work. We do not presume they cry because they are hungry or in need of a changing - we learn this and support it with experience. If one asked for evidence that a baby was hungry or soiled you might say "he's crying". If asked for elaboration or explanation you'd say "virtually every time he cries I find that either changing him or feeding him alleviates the signal".
If this weren't the case you'd search for other explanations, colic, teething, wayward safety-pins (nope, I'm not quite that old), etc.

So although you've known for decades that the universe exists and is consistent you never saw this as evidence of its being designed for a purpose (for your philosophical qualifier).

So why now do you repeat and repeat, with no elaboration or explanation, that the universe's existence and consistency are evidence of its being designed for a purpose?

For as long as I can remember (decades) I have seen the existence and consistency of the universe as evidence of it being purposeful. That is the reason I pointed out my "philosophical qualifier" established in early childhood.

A long-term common presumption is strengthened just by continual reinforcement of it. We presume babies cry when they are hungry or need changed. Do we need "elaboration or explanation" for this presumption? However, I will continue my efforts at communicating my philosophical outlook with you.

The consistency of the universe isn't a trivial thing. It would be considered a very profound observation if it wasn't so commonly observed. The idea of a space-based, giant fusion reactor transmitting energy to the entire planet might sound interesting until you point to the sun. Who needs to talk about flagellum when we have a purposeful sun shining its evidence of design each and every day? And don't forget the evidence of purpose and design in the existence of a useful moon either.

————————————————————————————————————————-

"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)

Q: So, my question is, when did you become aware of the existence of the universe? For how long have you suspected that it might be consistent?

A: I would generally say I have been aware of the universe's existance and apparent consistancy for as long as I can remember. And for just about as long, I have also been philosophically inclined to hold the materialistic and temporal nature of it as relatively unimportant.

Does this answer your question?

Yes, "for as long as I remember" answers the questions "how long have you known…been aware…?"
So although you've known for decades that the universe exists and is consistent you never saw this as evidence of its being designed for a purpose (for your philosophical qualifier).
So why now do you repeat and repeat, with no elaboration or explanation, that the universe's existence and consistency are evidence of its being designed for a purpose?
Surely there must be some reason that these constitute evidence for its purpose, such that you learned this reason and were finally compelled to come in out of the rain.
The boulder in my backyard exists and is consistent as far as I can tell, but this is not evidence to me that it has a purpose. I certainly have no reason to view its purpose as being that very existence and consistency I observe.