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

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think other non-human animals like bats, fishes, dolphins will cognize the moon-illusions like humans do?

And now you are trying to shift the onus to me. You made an assertion. I am challenging it. This appeal to incredulity and expecting me to now defend a position rather than defending your own position is confused.

If you have no real justification for you assertion, then just say so. Challenging your assumption does not mean I need to defend the opposite assumption. I could, for example, be unconvinced of both assertions, yours and someone saying animals do see the Moon illusion. Which, in fact is the case. I don't see either side, so far, having demonstrated what animals see or don't on this issue.

And then adding in bacteria was just distraction.

Do you understand these basic things about philosophical discussions.

If you assert X and I challenge this and ask for justification it does not entail I must believe the opposite of X.

And even if I did, my not being able to demonstrate the opposite of X, does not mean your position is justified.

That's basic stuff. Your certainly not the only person who seems to be confused about this, but you do seem confused about this.

So, do you have any justification or shall I expect more distraction.

My original to Seed was;

The awe of beauty of the above scenery [illusory ]is man-made not God-made.
I don't think other animals see a different size moon or sun at dawn or sunset from that at noon.
In the above I was merely referring to "animals" generally and hastily.
Since I mentioned "man-made" my intention was the opposite i.e. non-man, non-humans.
Since you challenged, I have to be serious to state what I really intended to mean, i.e. all living things that are non-humans [which is my original intention].

Since I am aware not all animals cognize exactly the same illusions as humans, I stated "I don't think .." and not implying "I am certain .." in which case I will have to justify.
In any case, this is a very petty point.

My main point is:
The awe of beauty of the above scenery [illusory ]is man-made not God-made.

You could have said this from the beginning. I didn't think you were certain until you started defending it and then responded with those incredulous questions, which imply it would absurd to think differently from you.

Nor did you explain why you think it is the case, especially given that you think it is an evolutionary trait (I mean what isn't, but if it's useful for us somehow or a byproduct and arose through evolution....? etc.)

But OK it's an opinion and you don't have any particular justification, fine.

And then to your main point. The beauty is not merely man made. And if you have an aesthetic FSK, which we do have, we will find, via intersubjectivity that some things are considered beautiful vastly more than others. So, there is, according to your own epistemology objective beauty that is dependent not just on minds floating in ether, but when reacting to this portion of the universe rather than that portion of the universe. There is an interplay between the human and the non-human and the latter is not incidental.

So the either it is human made or it is God made is a false dichotomy.

[Dontaskme]

Is this a trick question?

No, I'm being genuine with my question, I was thinking maybe you would be the kind of person to give it some thought. I've thought about this many times.

I'm not sure why you would think that I would know such a thing.

I don't think the question has an absolute answer anyway. But you and me can only imagine that there is a higher mind who knows why there are 7 balls of mystery floating around in our solar system.

Anyway, considering some of the strange creatures living at the bottom of the oceans, then I certainly wouldn't rule out something strange lurking beneath the frozen waters of the moons of Saturn or Jupiter, to name a few possible places.

On the other hand, seeing how I believe that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness, and that literally everything throughout the entire universe, from the fusion cores of the stars, right down to this plastic keyboard I am typing on is imbued with the life essence of this higher consciousness,...

...then that means that those 7 planets themselves are literally alive.

Not in any sentient way, but alive in the same way that your own inward mental images of those 7 planets are alive because they are imbued with your own life essence.

Furthermore, the speculative notion that literally everything throughout the universe is imbued with the essence of life, means that it is quite possible that the life that is present within the fabric of all matter could find all kinds of unique ways of emerging in hostile environments in events of "abiogenesis" that somehow work within those environments.

Which brings me back to why I would not rule out the possibility of life forms existing on the moons of Saturn and Jupiter or somewhere on the planets themselves.

Interesting ideas, thanks for your reply.

Why do you ask, and what's your answer to the question?

Was just curious to see if you had any take on the question.

My answer: I don't know, and will never know. I can only imagine and speculate as to why these 7 balls of barren planet are out there in space.
It occurred to me that these other planets seemed like a waste, just floating about and around the same vicinity as the earth, and yet the earth is teeming with life forms. Seems rather odd that the earth was able to support life and yet at the same time could just as easily have been desolate like the other 7 planets. It seemed to me that the universe could well have been so close to being completely uninhabited of any life forms at all. So the fact that earth has managed to spawn a sentient conscious being like ourselves, is rather astonishing really. It just seems like a complete mystery as to why the earth was conducive to support life and yet the other 7 planets just lay waste in the same space, I mean what was the point of those planets? the whole universe could have been full of barren planets and solar systems, just floating balls of nothingness, for no reason or purpose.

You don't have to reply, I'm just having a waffle about weird stuff that's all.

[Age]

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

Okay. If 'these things' ARE what 'you' SEE and BELIEVE ARE here, then 'these things' MUST BE here, right "atla"?

[Age]

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.

BUT the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting.

And, 'you' WILL PROVE 'this' FURTHER True by 'you' NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' which could or would back up and support 'your' CLAIM here "atla".

[Age]

Art is natural,

Is there ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'natural' TO 'you' "dontaskme"?

If yes, then what IS/ARE 'those thing/s', EXACTLY?

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.

But there is NO 'language' that MAKES 'Nature', Itself, beautiful NOR ugly.

'Beauty' AND/OR 'ugliness' exists ONLY WITHIN 'the observer'.

[Age]

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...


_______

But who IS CLAIMING that 'it' WAS LIKE the 'first video clip' to even BEGIN WITH?

How, the photo CAME ABOUT IS EXTREMELY OBVIOUS. Well to those of 'us' who ALREADY KNOW anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And then to your main point.

1. The beauty is not merely man made.
2. And if you have an aesthetic FSK, which we do have, we will find, via intersubjectivity that some things are considered beautiful vastly more than others.
3. So, there is, according to your own epistemology objective beauty that is dependent not just on minds floating in ether, but when reacting to this portion of the universe rather than that portion of the universe.
4.There is an interplay between the human and the non-human and the latter is not incidental.

So the either it is human made or it is God made is a false dichotomy.

Your 1 is not mine, I stated,
VA: The awe of beauty of the above scenery [illusory ]is man-made not God-made.
I agree with 2, so beauty as a human-'aesthetic'-FSK fact as objective is man-made intersubjectively.

Your 3 and 4 do not follow.

Since, beauty as a human-'aesthetic'-FSK fact is objective is man-made, it cannot be made by God because it is "impossible" [0.000..0001%] for God to exists as real.

[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.

BUT the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting.

And, 'you' WILL PROVE 'this' FURTHER True by 'you' NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' which could or would back up and support 'your' CLAIM here "atla".

Of course it is, the order/complexity of the creator that can create our universe, probably exceeds the order/complexity of our universe. So we run into infinite regress.

That's why all design and simulation arguments are probably self-refuting from the start. So is your idea that the world is some kind of intentional continuous creation with a higher intelligence already present.

Don't worry Age though, for once, you aren't the only one who is too incompetent to see something fairly simple as the above, but the majority of the people on this forum can't either.

[Iwannaplato]

And then to your main point.

1. The beauty is not merely man made.
Your 1 is not mine, I stated,

I understand I could have been clearer, but I didn't number anything and presenting it this way is disingenuous. I said now to your main point and my next sentence was my disagreement with it.

VA: The awe of beauty of the above scenery [illusory ]is man-made not God-made.
I agree with 2, so beauty as a human-'aesthetic'-FSK fact as objective is man-made inter-subjectively.

Your 3 and 4 do not follow.

Since, beauty as a human-'aesthetic'-FSK fact is objective is man-made, it cannot be made by God because it is "impossible" [0.000..0001%] for God to exists as real.

Did it occur to you to wonder what I meant by false dichotomy? I named that dichotomy as the choice between human-made and God made.

You did not respond to my post. You reacted to it, but you did not respond.

Unless you are arguing that when humans make something all the ingredients are human body parts. Beauty has to do with interplay between mind and things that are not mind. Or Beauty would be found everywhere, equally. But it's not.

[Dontaskme]

Art is natural,

Is there ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'natural' TO 'you' "dontaskme"?

If yes, then what IS/ARE 'those thing/s', EXACTLY?

I think ALL of nature is a natural expressive form of ART ..even the sex act between lovers is a form of ART ...so no, there nothing that is not natural ART in my opinion.

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.

But there is NO 'language' that MAKES 'Nature', Itself, beautiful NOR ugly.

'Beauty' AND/OR 'ugliness' exists ONLY WITHIN 'the observer'.

Yes, I agree.

[Age]

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.

BUT the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting.

And, 'you' WILL PROVE 'this' FURTHER True by 'you' NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' which could or would back up and support 'your' CLAIM here "atla".

Of course it is, the order/complexity of the creator that can create our universe, probably exceeds the order/complexity of our universe.

So, TO "atla", BECAUSE the so-called 'order/complexity of the creator that can create "our" universe, PROBABLY exceeds the order/complexity of "our" universe, THEN 'this' IS so-called and ALLEGED "mathematical self-refuting'.

Which IS A MORE STUPID and MORE ABSURD WORDING than I even IMAGINED "atla" would COME BACK WITH.

Now, BACK TO what I SAID, "atla" WILL PROVE 'my CLAIM' that the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting, BY "atla's" INABILITY TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which even could, let alone would, back up and support "atla's" CLAIM that the 'must be design is mathematically self-refuting'.

So we run into infinite regress.

BUT 'we' do NOT 'run into' 'infinite regress' here AT ALL. 'you' and some "others" however MIGHT "atla", but 'you', like "bahman" just USE the 'infinite regress' words WHEN 'you' have NOTHING ELSE LEFT.

That's why all design and simulation arguments are probably self-refuting from the start.

EITHER the 'design and simulation arguments' ARE 'self-refuting', like 'you' BELIEVE that 'they' ARE, and which there would be ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE FOR, OR 'they' ARE PROBABLY 'self-refuting'.

So, which one is 'it' here, TO 'you', "atla"?

ARE 'design and simulation arguments' SELF-REFUTING or just PROBABLY SELF-REFUTING?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'your' OWN WANTING or DESIRED WISHES or BELIEFS have NO ACTUAL BEARING on what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, here.

Which, by the way, and CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this was being written, was ALREADY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.

So is your idea that the world is some kind of intentional continuous creation with a higher intelligence already present.

'This' is NOT JUST PRESENT, 'this' IS ON TRACK and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, then again, what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN BY 'the world', and BY 'higher intelligence' here, "atla"?

Don't worry Age though, for once, you aren't the only one who is too incompetent to see something fairly simple as the above, but the majority of the people on this forum can't either.

Is what 'the majority of 'you' people', who ARE what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'too incompetent to see', the ACTUAL RIDICULOUSNESS of 'your CLAIMS' here, or some 'thing' ELSE?

If 'it' IS some 'thing' ELSE, would 'you' CARE TO EXPLAIN or ELABORATE ON MORE, so that 'those people' MAY BE ABLE TO SEE BETTER or SEE MORE?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, were 'you' COMPETENT ENOUGH TO SEE, COMPREHEND, and/or UNDERSTAND BETTER what I POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and REVEALED here?

[Atla]

BUT the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting.

And, 'you' WILL PROVE 'this' FURTHER True by 'you' NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' which could or would back up and support 'your' CLAIM here "atla".

Of course it is, the order/complexity of the creator that can create our universe, probably exceeds the order/complexity of our universe.

So, TO "atla", BECAUSE the so-called 'order/complexity of the creator that can create "our" universe, PROBABLY exceeds the order/complexity of "our" universe, THEN 'this' IS so-called and ALLEGED "mathematical self-refuting'.

Which IS A MORE STUPID and MORE ABSURD WORDING than I even IMAGINED "atla" would COME BACK WITH.

Now, BACK TO what I SAID, "atla" WILL PROVE 'my CLAIM' that the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting, BY "atla's" INABILITY TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which even could, let alone would, back up and support "atla's" CLAIM that the 'must be design is mathematically self-refuting'.

So we run into infinite regress.

BUT 'we' do NOT 'run into' 'infinite regress' here AT ALL. 'you' and some "others" however MIGHT "atla", but 'you', like "bahman" just USE the 'infinite regress' words WHEN 'you' have NOTHING ELSE LEFT.

That's why all design and simulation arguments are probably self-refuting from the start.

EITHER the 'design and simulation arguments' ARE 'self-refuting', like 'you' BELIEVE that 'they' ARE, and which there would be ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE FOR, OR 'they' ARE PROBABLY 'self-refuting'.

So, which one is 'it' here, TO 'you', "atla"?

ARE 'design and simulation arguments' SELF-REFUTING or just PROBABLY SELF-REFUTING?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'your' OWN WANTING or DESIRED WISHES or BELIEFS have NO ACTUAL BEARING on what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, here.

Which, by the way, and CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this was being written, was ALREADY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.

So is your idea that the world is some kind of intentional continuous creation with a higher intelligence already present.

'This' is NOT JUST PRESENT, 'this' IS ON TRACK and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, then again, what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN BY 'the world', and BY 'higher intelligence' here, "atla"?

Don't worry Age though, for once, you aren't the only one who is too incompetent to see something fairly simple as the above, but the majority of the people on this forum can't either.

Is what 'the majority of 'you' people', who ARE what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'too incompetent to see', the ACTUAL RIDICULOUSNESS of 'your CLAIMS' here, or some 'thing' ELSE?

If 'it' IS some 'thing' ELSE, would 'you' CARE TO EXPLAIN or ELABORATE ON MORE, so that 'those people' MAY BE ABLE TO SEE BETTER or SEE MORE?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, were 'you' COMPETENT ENOUGH TO SEE, COMPREHEND, and/or UNDERSTAND BETTER what I POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and REVEALED here?

I see it hit you hard that your "irrefutable truth" is probably just some mathemathically self-refuting delusion, always was. No one really expected some great new insight from you anyway, we didn't get our hopes up.

[Age]

Of course it is, the order/complexity of the creator that can create our universe, probably exceeds the order/complexity of our universe.

So, TO "atla", BECAUSE the so-called 'order/complexity of the creator that can create "our" universe, PROBABLY exceeds the order/complexity of "our" universe, THEN 'this' IS so-called and ALLEGED "mathematical self-refuting'.

Which IS A MORE STUPID and MORE ABSURD WORDING than I even IMAGINED "atla" would COME BACK WITH.

Now, BACK TO what I SAID, "atla" WILL PROVE 'my CLAIM' that the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting, BY "atla's" INABILITY TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which even could, let alone would, back up and support "atla's" CLAIM that the 'must be design is mathematically self-refuting'.

So we run into infinite regress.

BUT 'we' do NOT 'run into' 'infinite regress' here AT ALL. 'you' and some "others" however MIGHT "atla", but 'you', like "bahman" just USE the 'infinite regress' words WHEN 'you' have NOTHING ELSE LEFT.

That's why all design and simulation arguments are probably self-refuting from the start.

EITHER the 'design and simulation arguments' ARE 'self-refuting', like 'you' BELIEVE that 'they' ARE, and which there would be ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE FOR, OR 'they' ARE PROBABLY 'self-refuting'.

So, which one is 'it' here, TO 'you', "atla"?

ARE 'design and simulation arguments' SELF-REFUTING or just PROBABLY SELF-REFUTING?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'your' OWN WANTING or DESIRED WISHES or BELIEFS have NO ACTUAL BEARING on what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, here.

Which, by the way, and CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this was being written, was ALREADY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.

So is your idea that the world is some kind of intentional continuous creation with a higher intelligence already present.

'This' is NOT JUST PRESENT, 'this' IS ON TRACK and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, then again, what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN BY 'the world', and BY 'higher intelligence' here, "atla"?

Don't worry Age though, for once, you aren't the only one who is too incompetent to see something fairly simple as the above, but the majority of the people on this forum can't either.

Is what 'the majority of 'you' people', who ARE what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'too incompetent to see', the ACTUAL RIDICULOUSNESS of 'your CLAIMS' here, or some 'thing' ELSE?

If 'it' IS some 'thing' ELSE, would 'you' CARE TO EXPLAIN or ELABORATE ON MORE, so that 'those people' MAY BE ABLE TO SEE BETTER or SEE MORE?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, were 'you' COMPETENT ENOUGH TO SEE, COMPREHEND, and/or UNDERSTAND BETTER what I POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and REVEALED here?

I see it hit you hard that your "irrefutable truth" is probably just some mathemathically self-refuting delusion, always was. No one really expected some great new insight from you anyway, we didn't get our hopes up.

I see that it COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BAMBOOZLED 'you' here "atla", that 'you' could NOT even just SAY and WRITE a reply that made SENSE.

Also, the Fact that 'you' BELIEVED, and STILL BELIEVE, that ABSOLUTELY NO one, EVER, REALLY EXPECTED ABSOLUTELY ANY NEW INSIGHT FROM 'me' ANYWAY EXPLAINS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHY 'you' THINK, SPEAK, and REPLY 'the way' that 'you', OBVIOUSLY, DO here.

[Atla]

So, TO "atla", BECAUSE the so-called 'order/complexity of the creator that can create "our" universe, PROBABLY exceeds the order/complexity of "our" universe, THEN 'this' IS so-called and ALLEGED "mathematical self-refuting'.

Which IS A MORE STUPID and MORE ABSURD WORDING than I even IMAGINED "atla" would COME BACK WITH.

Now, BACK TO what I SAID, "atla" WILL PROVE 'my CLAIM' that the so-called 'must be design argument' IS ACTUALLY NOT mathematically self-refuting, BY "atla's" INABILITY TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which even could, let alone would, back up and support "atla's" CLAIM that the 'must be design is mathematically self-refuting'.


BUT 'we' do NOT 'run into' 'infinite regress' here AT ALL. 'you' and some "others" however MIGHT "atla", but 'you', like "bahman" just USE the 'infinite regress' words WHEN 'you' have NOTHING ELSE LEFT.


EITHER the 'design and simulation arguments' ARE 'self-refuting', like 'you' BELIEVE that 'they' ARE, and which there would be ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE FOR, OR 'they' ARE PROBABLY 'self-refuting'.

So, which one is 'it' here, TO 'you', "atla"?

ARE 'design and simulation arguments' SELF-REFUTING or just PROBABLY SELF-REFUTING?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'your' OWN WANTING or DESIRED WISHES or BELIEFS have NO ACTUAL BEARING on what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, here.

Which, by the way, and CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this was being written, was ALREADY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.



'This' is NOT JUST PRESENT, 'this' IS ON TRACK and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, then again, what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN BY 'the world', and BY 'higher intelligence' here, "atla"?


Is what 'the majority of 'you' people', who ARE what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'too incompetent to see', the ACTUAL RIDICULOUSNESS of 'your CLAIMS' here, or some 'thing' ELSE?

If 'it' IS some 'thing' ELSE, would 'you' CARE TO EXPLAIN or ELABORATE ON MORE, so that 'those people' MAY BE ABLE TO SEE BETTER or SEE MORE?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, were 'you' COMPETENT ENOUGH TO SEE, COMPREHEND, and/or UNDERSTAND BETTER what I POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and REVEALED here?

I see it hit you hard that your "irrefutable truth" is probably just some mathemathically self-refuting delusion, always was. No one really expected some great new insight from you anyway, we didn't get our hopes up.

I see that it COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BAMBOOZLED 'you' here "atla", that 'you' could NOT even just SAY and WRITE a reply that made SENSE.

Also, the Fact that 'you' BELIEVED, and STILL BELIEVE, that ABSOLUTELY NO one, EVER, REALLY EXPECTED ABSOLUTELY ANY NEW INSIGHT FROM 'me' ANYWAY EXPLAINS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHY 'you' THINK, SPEAK, and REPLY 'the way' that 'you', OBVIOUSLY, DO here.

Spewing more bullshit I see

[attofishpi]

Notes:
1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, "which means beauty doesn't exist on its own but is created by observers."

2. Did a God create different sizes of the moon and sun at different times of the day?

OMG. Do you honestly think the Sun and the Moon are changing sizes? (i mean, of course they are ever so slightly over time, but not in the way you are suggesting!!)