The Beauty of a Scenery is Man-Made, not God-Made

[Age]

Wrong

BUT 'me' JUST ASKING FOR 'you' TO PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT, TO 'you', right "atla"?

it's not about me

Here IS ANOTHER PRIME example of how COMMON it was, BACK THEN, for 'these posters' here to JUST NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'them'.

The FEAR, WITHIN 'them', of just being TOTALLY OPEN and Honest HAD BEEN SO INSTILLED, and WAS SO INGRAINED, WITHIN 'them', that 'they' would, literally, just FREEZE UP or DEFLECT, which EXPLAINS PERFECTLY a REASON WHY it TOOK 'them' SO LONG TO ARRIVE AT and COME-TO the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'.

[seeds]

...to you, the only thing illusory about it is in reference to your shallow observance of how our minds are fooled into thinking that the sun and the moon appear to change sizes depending upon their positions in the sky.

There are various kinds of illusions, i.e.
1. Empirical illusions
2. Logical illusions
3. Transcendental illusion

Again, what does any of that have to do with my initial claim that "only an idiot" would assume that the order implicit in this scene...



...is a product of chance?

And that includes my follow-up claim that "only a fool" would believe that we humans had any involvement in the creation of the fields of quantum information from which the phenomena in that scene are derived.

You keep digressing off into strawman-ish territory.

Why you reify and insist an illusory God is really real is due to desperate psychology from an evolutionary default of an existential crisis.

I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but again, your main problem is that you keep referencing "evolution" as if it were a no-questions-asked "given" that the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics,...

(without the slightest hint of guidance, or teleological impetus, or any way of consciously "knowing" what they were actually creating)

...were somehow able to cause the randomly dispersed, post-Bang gibberish of disparate quantum particles, metaphorically represented by this,...



...to magically come together to form the perfectly arranged patterns of coded information that not only created this unthinkably stable setting upon which "evolution" could do its thing,...



...but also, to meticulously "equip" the above setting with every possible ingredient* it would need to awaken innumerable lifeforms into existence.

* Shall we reference the world's encyclopedias to understand what I am getting at?

Again, "only a fool" could believe such a thing.

And lastly, V, the reason why I insist that God is "really real" is because 53 years ago, I had a direct - one-on-one - (burning bush-like) encounter with an incorporeal entity who made it quite clear to me that the universe is its mind, and that it possessed willful control over the material fabric of my body and the room where this encounter took place.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

...but also, to meticulously "equip" the above setting with every possible ingredient* it would need to awaken innumerable lifeforms into existence.

* Shall we reference the world's encyclopedias to understand what I am getting at?

Again, "only a fool" could believe such a thing.

And lastly, V, the reason why I insist that God is "really real" is because 53 years ago, I had a direct - one-on-one - (burning bush-like) encounter with an incorporeal entity who made it quite clear to me that the universe is its mind, and that it possessed willful control over the material fabric of my body and the room where this encounter took place.
_______

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'subjectivity' in the philosophical sense?
Your very unique and personal experience ONCE UPON A TIME is subjective per se as defined below;

The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

As such, whatever that is experienced is merely a subjective 'experience' out of your mind [one person's], thus, it cannot be objective, i.e. objectively real.
That you insist to reify and [hypostatize] something real from of merely a first-personal personal experience [worst when it is >50 years ago] is delusional i.e. insisting something that is an illusion as real.

As I had highlighted there are probably [hundreds of] thousands of such recorded first-person experiences ranging from the benign to the malignant*.
* malignant where the experiencers killed many because those voices-in-themselves told them to kill humans for various reasons.

Now, what is most credible and objective knowledge of real things is from the scientific-FSK.
If that 'thing' is real, evidence of it should be available for verification and justification as real empirically via the scientific FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within Anti-Realism [many types, mine = Kantian] there is no issue of transcendental illusions, i.e. the illusory God, soul & the absolute universe because there is no objective mind-independent reality to be deluded from.
However, antirealists do not accept empirical and logical illusions.

The last bit is a conflation.
1. Where is it is transcendental illusion, i.e. taking what is beyond experience to be somewhat experiential, it is definitely and absolutely a transcendental illusion as defined.
2. What is experienced is merely that process of being deluded in the brain.
Thus 1 and 2 should not be conflated at all.

I specifically said that there is an empirical aspect to nearly all religious belief and for some it is central. There are theists who use deduction to posit transcendent beings and so on. But I wouldn't call that an illusion. It's poor reasoning or not. It's a delusion that something must be the case logically or not.

To me illusions are sensory/experiential.

If someone mounts an ontological argument for the existence of God and I think it fails, I don't think this is an illusion. It is a weak argument or they are deluded in THINKING there is a God, if that is my position.

There are three types of illusion, i.e. empirical, logical and transcendental in their respective context [as explained].
To insist there are only the typical empirical [sensory and experiential] illusion is very narrow and shallow philosophical thinking, i.e. you need to enlarge your philosophical vista.

God typically claimed to be omni-whatever cannot be empirically possible.
I stated, a reified and hypostatized God [from experience] is an transcendental illusion.
It is an illusion because what is merely transcendental [not empirical] is insisted to be objective real in the empirical sense.

Theists will claim a deity [transcendental] has empirical contents and is really real to the extent of sending a son, transmitting messages via chosen prophets and messengers and a god theists can pray to and get answers.
This is a fallacy of conflating the transcendental [not scientifically possible] with the empirical [scientifically possible].

The latter is evolving. What was considered impossible has later turned out to be possible. Science shouldn't be in the business of ruling out phenomena. They can certainly rule out research and other processes of arriving at conclusions, within the science FSK. Though this doesn't mean they are correct.

What is phenomena specific to science is what science can conclude as scientifically real as conditioned within the scientific FSK.
As such, science will rule out 'whatever is claimed as phenomena' if that claim cannot be justified scientifically.

What theists [God] and realists [independent things-in-themselves] are claiming as an ideology is something that is beyond possible experience.
Thereof, these claims are a non-starter to be justified as scientifically real.

There is nothing wrong in claiming that black is 0.001% white or vice versa provided the full context is understood. In this case, it is effective and useful. e.g. to convert black to white we merely add more and more white in degrees.
Note this,
Say, if you are faced with a billion ton of black paint, surely it is black without doubt.
But if we add 10000 billion tons of white paint to it and mixed them, then it is 0.01% black or 99.99% white.
Just imagine 1 billion ton of black paint is not 'black' [merely 0.01%] in that context, but it is true with the specific FSK.

And here you are talking about objects and colors much as a realist would. Where's Skepdick on those rare occasions when he's needed.

Off-topic.
Whatever is claimed by a realist[philosophical] is what-exists is absolutely independent of the human mind.
As such, black or white exists [e.g. in wavelengths, etc.] regardless of whether there are humans or not.

How can the above 'talk' be the same those of the realists[philosophical] when computations of % are computed and established by humans?

[Atla]

BUT 'me' JUST ASKING FOR 'you' TO PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT, TO 'you', right "atla"?

it's not about me

Here IS ANOTHER PRIME example of how COMMON it was, BACK THEN, for 'these posters' here to JUST NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'them'.

The FEAR, WITHIN 'them', of just being TOTALLY OPEN and Honest HAD BEEN SO INSTILLED, and WAS SO INGRAINED, WITHIN 'them', that 'they' would, literally, just FREEZE UP or DEFLECT, which EXPLAINS PERFECTLY a REASON WHY it TOOK 'them' SO LONG TO ARRIVE AT and COME-TO the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'.

Lies, projections, completely wrong mind-reading from the God-channeling cripple as usual

[Atla]

It pains me to see VA to be on the reasonable side of an argument, even if he has no idea why the "must be design" argument is mathemathically self-refuting.

[Dontaskme]

Art is natural, the nature of which is kaleidoscopic.

Nature is neither beauty nor ugly, except in it's conception, artificially imposed upon by man-made mentally constructed dualistic synthetic language and meaning born of thought, albeit illusory.

[Iwannaplato]

There are three types of illusion, i.e. empirical, logical and transcendental in their respective context [as explained].
To insist there are only the typical empirical [sensory and experiential] illusion is very narrow and shallow philosophical thinking, i.e. you need to enlarge your philosophical vista.

So, you did something here that I have pointed out before. You did not interact with what I said. You did not respond to my justification. What did you do?
You repeated what you wrote in the OP.
And you added ad hom comments.
Kant for example used the term Transcendental Illusion. I think that is a poor term. I made a short argument for why.
Kant's books are not the Bible, where someone who thinks there is a terminology problem is going against an authority on the use of language - and not his native language - must be followed.

In case you don't realize this: repeating text that I have already read is not a reasoned response. Nor does adding in some ad hom comments transform it into a reasoned response.
Though it is your loss if you think they do. Why your loss?
Becuase you simply repeated yourself instead of reasoning.

[seeds]

And lastly, V, the reason why I insist that God is "really real" is because 53 years ago, I had a direct - one-on-one - (burning bush-like) encounter with an incorporeal entity who made it quite clear to me that the universe is its mind, and that it possessed willful control over the material fabric of my body and the room where this encounter took place.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'subjectivity' in the philosophical sense?

Well, seeing how I am suggesting that literally everything we experience...

(be it the phenomenal features of our thoughts and dreams, or the phenomenal features of the universe)

...is - in one way or another - a product of subjectivity (i.e., a product of the inner-workings of someone's mind),...

...then I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of what the term entails than you do.

Look, V, you could instantly put this whole perennial debate to rest.

Indeed, all you have to do to prove me wrong is stop ignoring the crucial point I have been making in my two prior posts and provide a truly logical explanation as to how this...



...was transformed into this...



The key words are "truly logical."

Which means that the utterly ridiculous notion that it's all a product of chance will get you a bum's rush out the door...


_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

And lastly, V, the reason why I insist that God is "really real" is because 53 years ago, I had a direct - one-on-one - (burning bush-like) encounter with an incorporeal entity who made it quite clear to me that the universe is its mind, and that it possessed willful control over the material fabric of my body and the room where this encounter took place.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'subjectivity' in the philosophical sense?

Well, seeing how I am suggesting that literally everything we experience...

(be it the phenomenal features of our thoughts and dreams, or the phenomenal features of the universe)

...is - in one way or another - a product of subjectivity (i.e., a product of the inner-workings of someone's mind),...

...then I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of what the term entails than you do.

Look, V, you could instantly put this whole perennial debate to rest.

Indeed, all you have to do to prove me wrong is stop ignoring the crucial point I have been making in my two prior posts and provide a truly logical explanation as to how this...



...was transformed into this...



The key words are "truly logical."

Which means that the utterly ridiculous notion that it's all a product of chance will get you a bum's rush out the door...
_______

1. Suggest you read up Constructivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... f_science)
This is about the knowledge re Constructivism.

2. For the emergence and realization of the knowledge, see link below.
Avoid thinking "Constructivism" is like a builder constructing a building.

3. The reality of the 1st image of a soup of particle emerged and is realized via a human-based science-physics FSK.
Then emergence continue to evolve and is subsequently realized to the reality [of beauty or ugliness] at present.
Do you believe all creatures will realize and perceive the same images as above?

4. Because the fundamental is human-based it cannot be God-based. See:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

5. Note again, you are relying 100% of a first-person [only you] very subjective basis in arguing your point .. God exists.
This view is VERY philosophically immature.

6. What is most realistic is to work TOP-DOWN, e.g. seeing that beauty scenery with AWE and based on empirical evidence, begins to ask WHY and HOW till one run out of answers and STOP to as far as the evidence can support.

7. What you have done is to adopt the BOTTOM-UP approach by leaping beyond the empirical by faith and based on merely ONE first-person personal view to a thought of a God.
Then you start from the BOTTOM to justify whatever is on the TOP.

7. Logical?? my foot!
Logic is merely a tool, a double-sided tool.
Note deductive logic and GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out.
That is what you did, you input Garbage and what you get out is Garbage.

8. Show me where logic can prove absolute certainty of reality?

Address all my points 1 to 8 above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another rational explanation.

You are familiar with this image;


Try this with deeper reflective thinking.
I presumed you are agree,
1. scientifically [human-based scientific FSK] the Universe began with the Big Bang with a bust of particles expanding in all direction; like the above image with no specific pattern of things.
2. Then the particles got together to form denser clusters or bundles of particles.
3. The process has been going for 13.7 billions years with denser and denser clusters or bundles of particles up the present.
4. Around 3.5 billions years ago, the first one-celled animals emerged. Do you think they perceived these dense clusters as stars in a sky. No, No, No..
5. Later after a few billion years, we have animal with pattern recognition abilities who would perceive these patterns as things within the specific cognitive FSK.
6. It is only at this stage that there is emergence and realization of particular things of reality [separating the discrete from the continuous] specific to these animals. There is no abilities for these animals to know and describe them.
7.The above continue till existence of humans with emergences and realization of reality specific to the FSR which is then perceive, known and described with the specific FSK.
8. But note these emergences and realization of the discrete is grounded on the ever present continuous soup of particles.
9. But this 'soup of particles' is the resultant of 1 above which is conditioned to the human based science-physic FSK.
10. Yes, it's circular and the point is there are no mind-independent reality, it is always entangled with the human conditions.
11. You may bring in ex nihilo nihil fit or principle of sufficient reason, all these are all human [subject] made.

What we have are only first-person experiences, thus subjective.
To make it less subjective, we have to rely on a collective-of-subjects' experiences via a human-based FSK to find shared views based on verified and justified empirical evidences, so that they are objective [independent of a subject's views].

From the above, there is no way, one's speculation of an absolute human independent reality can exist at all. That speculation is an illusion and to insist is delusional.
Yours is a psychological issue that need philosophical therapy.

[seeds]

_______

N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Note to self: Remember to keep posting "Notes: KIV" to use up post slots and to annoy others.
_______

[seeds]

_______

N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶



To make myself a samwich.
_______

[seeds]

_______

N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶


________

[seeds]

_______


_______