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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst God is ultimately illusory, it is still a very necessary useful illusion that is adapted via evolution.

Yes, evolution that took place in an unfathomably ordered and stable setting that allegedly, by sheer accident, was miraculously equipped with every possible ingredient necessary to not only awaken innumerable lifeforms into existence,...

...but also to maintain this awakening process billions of years into the future.

Only an idiot would assume that the unthinkable order implicit in just this one simple scene...



...is a product of chance.
_______

You are an idiot [of low intelligence] here for being ignorant you are entrapped into an illusion via evolution.

Did you ever think reflectively why that evening setting sun in the picture is larger than the sun at noon?

"The 'moon illusion' is one of the oldest known psychological phenomena; records of it go back to ancient China and Egypt. It may be the most ancient scientific puzzle that is still unexplained.

Why do the moon and the sun look so much larger near the horizon than they do high up in the sky? I have heard this called the "moon illusion" or the "Problem of Luna Mendex." Is it an illusion of the eye?

"My own view is that the moon illusion is linked to the mechanism that produces everyday size-distance perception, a genetically determined brain process that allows us to translate the planar images that fall on the retina into a view of rigid objects moving in space. I believe the moon illusion results from what happens when the mechanism operates in an unusual situation. In normal perception, when rigid objects move in depth (distance), the angular size of the light image stimulating our eyes grows or shrinks. The brain automatically translates this changing stimulation back into the perception of rigid objects whose position in depth is changing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... and-the-s/

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.

You [Seed] is THE idiot in thinking others are idiots.

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

[Age]

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

AND, WHO CREATED 'you', observers?

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

What is 'this God' 'thing', which 'you' speak OF and talk ABOUT here "veritas aequitas"?

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTIONS, BECAUSE of the OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCES that WOULD OCCUR TO 'your BELIEFS' here, and thus ULTIMATELY TO 'you'.

[seeds]

Whilst God is ultimately illusory, it is still a very necessary useful illusion that is adapted via evolution.

Yes, evolution that took place in an unfathomably ordered and stable setting that allegedly, by sheer accident, was miraculously equipped with every possible ingredient necessary to not only awaken innumerable lifeforms into existence,...

...but also to maintain this awakening process billions of years into the future.

Only an idiot would assume that the unthinkable order implicit in just this one simple scene...



...is a product of chance.
_______

You are an idiot [of low intelligence] here for being ignorant you are entrapped into an illusion via evolution.

First of all, V, in the post you are responding to, I never directly accused you of being an idiot. No, I simply stated that "only an idiot" would assume that the unthinkable order implicit in the scene I provided is a product of chance.

In which case, if you are admitting to being the type of idiot I am referring to, then it would appear that you are voluntarily taking ownership of the accusation.

And secondly, there is this...

Did you ever think reflectively why that evening setting sun in the picture is larger than the sun at noon?

What in the world does that (or anything else you wrote in your reply) have anything to do with the point I was making regarding the fact that the context of reality in which we were awakened into existence is fantastically ordered?

And thirdly, do you ever pay the slightest bit of attention to what other people say to you over the years?

I mean, here you are thinking that I should be shocked in some way because you are pointing out that the sun and the moon cause our minds to experience the "illusion" of those objects being larger or smaller depending upon their varying positions in the sky,...

...when, for decades, I have been insisting that the entire universe is a gargantuan "illusion" that has pretty much been scientifically proven to have been created from an infinitely malleable, informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that -- just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created -- seems to be capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable" (take the near infinite features of the universe, for example).

And fourthly, when it comes to the undisputed (by me) fact that we are indeed dealing with an "illusion" here, apparently, when you look at this scene,...



...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.

While, on the other hand, when I look at that same scene, I see something that, according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, wouldn't even exist in those varying 3-D forms were it not for the presence of consciousness to explicate them from the underlying fields of quantum (coded) information.

Indeed, I can even pull back from that scene and observe the illusion of the computer screen I am viewing it on, along with the room I am situated in, and likewise realize that they too are but mere illusions that my consciousness is explicating into existence from the underlying fields of holographic-like information.

And it doesn't stop there, for I can pull back even further - out of my body and into the inner dimension of my mind, where if I close my eyes and attempt to seek out its outer boundary, I soon discover that the outer boundary of my own mind appears to be open and endless in pretty much the same way that the outer boundary of the universe appears to be open and endless.

Why?

Because our minds and the mind of God (the universe) are similar in structure, wherein even though they both seem to be infinite dimensions of reality (infinite spatial "arenas"), they are, in truth, "bubble-like" phenomena that are "closed and bounded" by reason of the limited amount of the living essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

And lastly, when it comes to the unfathomable level of order we are immersed within, again when I look at this scene,...



...I not only see the absolute perfect source of light and heat that illuminates and warms the scene, but I also see the absolute perfect source of energy that literally powers the scripted processes of the coded information (DNA) that not only delineates (codes for) the structural architecture of those holographic-like manifestations of reality that we call grass and trees*,...

(which, btw, are "systematically" watered by those holographic clouds)

...but also delineates (codes for) the structural architecture of more intricately designed holograms such as, for example, this...

*(Isn't it remarkably convenient that one of the most abundantly available [and replenishable] sources of heating and building materials are trees? Note the wooden fence in the pasture image, which, contrary to your nonsense declaring everything in that picture being "manmade," is the only manmade thing in that particular scene. Indeed, only a fool would believe that we humans had any involvement in the creation of the pre-existing fields of coded information from which the phenomena in that scene are derived. In which case, are you also voluntarily taking ownership of the "fool" moniker? )

Anyway, like I have stated so many times in the past...

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly ironic it is that our exponentially growing accumulation of knowledge can reveal mind-blowing levels of complexity and order in how the universe is constructed, yet the more complex and ordered it seems to be, the more willing some ̶h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ idiots are to think that the order is founded upon “serendipity.”

_______

[Atla]

One thinks QM has proven that the world doesn't exist, the other thinks QM has proven that we have access to something infinitely malleable.

BUT the ACTUAL TRUTH is that QM has PROVEN that 'age' is GOD in DISGUISE.

[Age]

One thinks QM has proven that the world doesn't exist, the other thinks QM has proven that we have access to something infinitely malleable.

BUT the ACTUAL TRUTH is that QM has PROVEN that 'age' is GOD in DISGUISE.

WHEN WAS 'this' PROVED True TO 'you' "atla"?

Also, would 'you' LIKE TO PROVIDE THE link TO WHERE 'this' WAS, SUPPOSEDLY, PROVEN?

Or, are 'you' TOO SCARED and AFRAID TO DO 'this' AS WELL "atla"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...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

The empirical illusions, one as I highlighted above is a clue to the logical and transcendental illusions, of God, the eternal Soul and the absolutely WHOLE Universe.

Why God is an illusion?
viewtopic.php?p=684489#p684489

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

[Iwannaplato]

...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

The concept of illusion in a metaphysical anti-realism is very tricky. Illusions are mismatches between experiencing and objective reality. But in metaphysical antirealism we don't have some objective reality that we can compare with experience. Yes, we could talk about how, for example, most people will nto experience X, so calling it Y (what most people experience) has more intersubjective support. But in the end it is not an illusion, but an experience, one that is more rare than others (if it is).

And even something like a deity often has a strong empirical content. Sure, people may argue they are interpreting their experiences incorrectly, but we do not, in antirealism, have the 'their experience does not match objective reality' claim possible. It does not fit with other intersubjective experiences, peachy.

But then you end up with the odd conclusion that believing in God was objective before other FSKs had more intersubjective support - and since secular FSKs have less adherants than religious ones, it could be argued we are still in that postion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...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

The concept of illusion in a metaphysical anti-realism is very tricky. Illusions are mismatches between experiencing and objective reality. But in metaphysical antirealism we don't have some objective reality that we can compare with experience. Yes, we could talk about how, for example, most people will nto experience X, so calling it Y (what most people experience) has more intersubjective support. But in the end it is not an illusion, but an experience, one that is more rare than others (if it is).

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.

And even something like a deity often has a strong empirical content. Sure, people may argue they are interpreting their experiences incorrectly, but we do not, in antirealism, have the 'their experience does not match objective reality' claim possible. It does not fit with other intersubjective experiences, peachy.

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].

But then you end up with the odd conclusion that believing in God was objective before other FSKs had more intersubjective support - and since secular FSKs have less adherants than religious ones, it could be argued we are still in that postion.

The point is to be effective in any deliberation of competing and contrasting issues we have to bring them into a common denominator within a continuum, i.e. in this case credibility and objectivity.

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.

[Atla]

One thinks QM has proven that the world doesn't exist, the other thinks QM has proven that we have access to something infinitely malleable.

BUT the ACTUAL TRUTH is that QM has PROVEN that 'age' is GOD in DISGUISE.

WHEN WAS 'this' PROVED True TO 'you' "atla"?

Also, would 'you' LIKE TO PROVIDE THE link TO WHERE 'this' WAS, SUPPOSEDLY, PROVEN?

Or, are 'you' TOO SCARED and AFRAID TO DO 'this' AS WELL "atla"?

Says a lot that you asked for a link.

[Age]

One thinks QM has proven that the world doesn't exist, the other thinks QM has proven that we have access to something infinitely malleable.

BUT the ACTUAL TRUTH is that QM has PROVEN that 'age' is GOD in DISGUISE.

WHEN WAS 'this' PROVED True TO 'you' "atla"?

Also, would 'you' LIKE TO PROVIDE THE link TO WHERE 'this' WAS, SUPPOSEDLY, PROVEN?

Or, are 'you' TOO SCARED and AFRAID TO DO 'this' AS WELL "atla"?

Says a lot that you asked for a link.

That 'you' WILL NOT PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT MORE.

[Atla]

WHEN WAS 'this' PROVED True TO 'you' "atla"?

Also, would 'you' LIKE TO PROVIDE THE link TO WHERE 'this' WAS, SUPPOSEDLY, PROVEN?

Or, are 'you' TOO SCARED and AFRAID TO DO 'this' AS WELL "atla"?

Says a lot that you asked for a link.

That 'you' WILL NOT PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT MORE.

Wrong

[Age]

Says a lot that you asked for a link.

That 'you' WILL NOT PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT MORE.

Wrong

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

[Atla]

That 'you' WILL NOT PROVIDE A link SAYS A LOT MORE.

Wrong

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

it's not about me

[Iwannaplato]

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.

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.

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.