Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Sivad on July 14th, 2017, 10:43 pm 

That doesn't really address the issue of brute v necessary? It's not philosophy, it's just mysticism.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby DragonFly on July 14th, 2017, 10:57 pm 

Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 9:43 pm wrote:That doesn't really address the issue of brute v necessary? It's not philosophy, it's just mysticism.


That's the best we can do. No one can know All.

"Maybe" ever rules over certainty!


Would you that spangle of Existence spend
About The Secret--quick about it, Friend!
A Hair perhaps divides the False from True--
And upon what, prithee, may life depend?

A Hair perhaps divides the False and True;
Yes; and a single Alif were the clue--
Could you but find it--to the Treasure-house,
And peradventure to The Master too;

Whose secret Presence through Creation's veins
Running Quicksilver-like eludes your pains;
Taking all shapes from Máh to Máhi and
They change and perish all--but He remains;

A moment guessed--then back behind the Fold
Immerst of Darkness round the Drama roll'd
Which, for the Pastime of Eternity,
He doth Himself contrive, enact, behold.


— Omar
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Sivad on July 14th, 2017, 10:58 pm 

The buck stops at that which has no parts. Gads, the Eternal Basis has to be really darn tiny, it seems, as the simplest continuous function, to put it generally, for we can’t say any more for sure. Bravo! You could teach this class now. What is composite, or worse, complex, appears not to be able to be what is First, Basic, and Fundamental.


This is a common misunderstanding for physicalists, metaphysical simplicity implies no constraint on power or liability. A metaphysical simple could realize infinite modalities, it would be the substance of mythological Chaos. It wouldn't be any one thing, it would be all things which are metaphysically possible which could include an absolute being with omnipotence over the Chaos that would delimit the possibility space.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby DragonFly on July 14th, 2017, 11:14 pm 

Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 9:58 pm wrote:
The buck stops at that which has no parts. Gads, the Eternal Basis has to be really darn tiny, it seems, as the simplest continuous function, to put it generally, for we can’t say any more for sure. Bravo! You could teach this class now. What is composite, or worse, complex, appears not to be able to be what is First, Basic, and Fundamental.


This is a common misunderstanding for physicalists, metaphysical simplicity implies no constraint on power or liability. A metaphysical simple could realize infinite modalities, it would be the substance of mythological Chaos. It wouldn't be any one thing, it would be all things which are metaphysically possible which could include an absolute being with omnipotence over the Chaos that would delimit the possibility space.


Yes, anything could be of that Eternal which can't have any input; its nature might be random or everything (either potentially or all at once), but, as you say, it can't be one arbitrary, specific, certain thing, for there is no choosing point.

Only the fool says for sure that there is or isn’t ‘God’.

All that's left is whatever can be gotten out of the fact of one not being able to know.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
Sivad liked this post


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Sivad on July 15th, 2017, 12:28 am 

DragonFly » July 14th, 2017, 8:14 pm wrote:Only the fool says for sure that there is or isn’t ‘God’.


I think the religious conception of God is obviously bogus, but Schellenberg's idea of a metaphysical, axiological, soteriological absolute is definitely an open question.

All that's left is whatever can be gotten out of the fact of one not being able to know.


I think that really does hold for public life, as political actors we should rely on an intersubjective rational empiricism, holding anything beyond that as speculative and outside the fair bounds of political action.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 8:11 am 

Serpent:

"No god has been talking to me. No god has been talking to lots of people. All kinds of gods have been talking to all kinds of people since there have been people. Your newly-discovered god, or newly-proved god or whatever, hasn't hitherto gotten through to all the people. Is there any reason to suppose that will change?"

Right - BUT how many of those people, who have CLAIMED that "God has talked to them," has EVER been able to "scientifically prove it?" See?

Because, I mean, Charles Mason claimed God talked to him, so too did Adolf Hitler, and so too did Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Get it?
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby edy420 on July 15th, 2017, 8:40 am 

God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did.
-George Bush
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 8:43 am 

Sivad:

"I just admit my ignorance, I don't know what's metaphysically possible so I can't rule anything out. I'm a skeptic who views all metaphysical commitments as fideistic(faith based)."

But science, math and reality - four dimensional Time made manifest - The Mind of God, and the, mathematically verifiable, Eternal Harmony, are the literally defined pinnacle antithesis of "faith," and especially "blind faith," and as Kant did explain:

"Time is the formal condition of a priori of all phenomenon..."

As did Einstein:

"Unfinished Symphony - Strings may do what Einstein failed to do - tie together two great irreconcilable ideas of 20th century physics - Einstein had hoped to resolve the conflict between the smooth continuum of (4 dimensional) space/time and the quantum world, but success had eluded him..."

As did Hawking:

"...A Brief History of Time - Hawking describes the quest for the vaunted 'theory of everything,' that would enable us to know the Mind of God...'

Ergo...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 8:47 am 

edy420:

"God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did.
-George Bush"

NEVER "believe" ANYTHING someone tells you - EVER.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 8:54 am 

FireFly:

"Once I heard a voice and had a chill as the Devil snuck up behind me. Yes, like that. Superstition abounds."

Didn't you know, the greatest trick the devil EVER pulled, was to convince the world he doesn't exist, and he did an extraordinary job, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=2021s
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Serpent on July 15th, 2017, 10:02 am 

MrMikeludo » July 15th, 2017, 7:11 am wrote:[Serpent: "No god has been talking to me. .. Is there any reason to suppose that will change?"]
Right - BUT how many of those people, who have CLAIMED that "God has talked to them," has EVER been able to "scientifically prove it?" See?

I don't see anything today that I didn't see yesterday (indeed, a tiny bit less, as the cataract keeps growing)

Because, I mean, Charles Mason claimed God talked to him, so too did Adolf Hitler, and so too did Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Get it?

No. What's the relevance of their gobbledygook to yours?
Where are the brand-spanking-new commandments that will save us from DOOM?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 15th, 2017, 10:16 am 

Do you sleep at regular intervals?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:19 am 

BadgerJelly:

"Do you sleep at regular intervals?"

Badger? You're back??? But I already told Betty and Veronica you weren't coming...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:21 am 

Serpent:

"I don't see anything today that I didn't see yesterday (indeed, a tiny bit less, as the cataract keeps growing)"

I'm sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. WHAT don't you see?

And:

"Where are the brand-spanking-new commandments that will save us from DOOM?"

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WHO said ANYTHING about "saving people from doom?"
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:21 am 

Serpent:

"I don't see anything today that I didn't see yesterday (indeed, a tiny bit less, as the cataract keeps growing)"

I'm sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. WHAT don't you see?

And:

"Where are the brand-spanking-new commandments that will save us from DOOM?"

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WHO said ANYTHING about "saving people from doom?"
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 15th, 2017, 10:34 am 

MrMikeludo » July 15th, 2017, 10:19 pm wrote:BadgerJelly:

"Do you sleep at regular intervals?"

Badger? You're back??? But I already told Betty and Veronica you weren't coming...


Just curious about your mental state. Not everyday someone starting ranting in code on this forum.

Betty and Veronica? No idea what you're talking about. GUess Me iS dumb-dum ....
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:35 am 

BadgerJelly:

"If the good people succeed will the evil people praise them?"

It doesn't look that way, does it?
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:40 am 

BadgerJellY:

"Just curious about your mental state. Not everyday someone starting ranting in code on this forum. "

Check it out, I predicted YOU would say that @16:50:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUoSgxcfx0

And:

"Betty and Veronica? No idea what you're talking about. GUess Me iS dumb-dum..."

Really? Come on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfSO8YS0sWg
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Serpent on July 15th, 2017, 10:53 am 

MrMikeludo » July 15th, 2017, 9:21 am wrote:Serpent:
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. WHAT don't you see?

The immediately preceding:
Right - BUT how many of those people, who have CLAIMED that "God has talked to them," has EVER been able to "scientifically prove it?" See?

Do you always have this much trouble following a sequence of responses? You've asked me twice now to be specific when I answered one of your statements directly. There isn't anything more specific than
See?
No I don't see.

And:

[S -- "Where are the brand-spanking-new commandments that will save us from DOOM?"]

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WHO said ANYTHING about "saving people from doom?"

You did.
[Serpent: How is it relevant to anything?]
MrMikeludo --
Could you be a bit more specific, please? To begin with, how is it NOT relevant to EVERYTHING? From being able to experience the extreme of conscious awareness - and/or a soul, and coming to an understanding of our more purposeful existence, to our very survival, and our, literal, impending doom - which we ARE actually effecting, as a matter of scientific fact.
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=33149

I did take THE liberty of capitalizing a different WORD. Still, the gist ought to be clear enough.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 10:56 am 

BadgerJelly:

You see Badger, if you had actually, simply looked at what it is you are commenting about, you would have seen that I already explained that, growing up I was a jock, some people said a dumb-ass jock, and got kicked out of school in the 10th grade, but I have an older brother that was/is a genuine genius, yeah – IQ of about 160, and was a Philosophy Major, Art/English minor at Swarthmore College, and also has degrees in: Communications, Psychology, etc, etc, etc, and so I learned everything first hand, including, this – what Leonardo da Vinci said about knowledge:

“If you love knowledge for the returns you expect from it, and not its great virtue, you are like a dog that wags its tail and makes a fuss and jumps up on who might ever give it a bone...”

You see, I learned – first hand (because I'm really not such a dumb-ass), that I “access” knowledge – the Mind of God made manifest – Reality – the Laws of Nature, etc, etc, etc, because – in so doing, that “knowledge” enables me to neurophysilogically experience the effects that understanding the laws of nature are capable of causing, and so, when “I” come someplace like this, or ANYPLACE actually, all I am concerned with is communicating my learned understanding to other like minded people - “human beings,” you see Badger? Only say “yes,” Badger – because, remember, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROVING SOMETHING ABSTRACTLY.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 11:00 am 

Serpent:

SERIOUSLY:

"Serpent: How is it relevant to anything?]
MrMikeludo --
Could you be a bit more specific, please? To begin with, how is it NOT relevant to EVERYTHING? From being able to experience the extreme of conscious awareness - and/or a soul, and coming to an understanding of our more purposeful existence, to our very survival, and our, literal, impending doom - which we ARE actually effecting, as a matter of scientific fact."

WHERE - DO - YOU - SEE - THE - WORD - "SAVE" - IN - THAT - POST???
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Serpent on July 15th, 2017, 11:58 am 

MrMikeludo » July 15th, 2017, 10:00 am wrote:Serpent:

SERIOUSLY:

"Serpent: How is it relevant to anything?]
MrMikeludo --
Could you be a bit more specific, please? To begin with, how is it NOT relevant to EVERYTHING? From being able to experience the extreme of conscious awareness - and/or a soul, and coming to an understanding of our more purposeful existence, to our very survival, and our, literal, impending doom - which we ARE actually effecting, as a matter of scientific fact."

WHERE - DO - YOU - SEE - THE - WORD - "SAVE" - IN - THAT - POST???


Ah, NOW - I - SEE. ..
NO saving... JUST doom...
What good are you???
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 15th, 2017, 12:04 pm 

MrMikeludo » July 15th, 2017, 10:40 pm wrote:BadgerJellY:

"Just curious about your mental state. Not everyday someone starting ranting in code on this forum. "

Check it out, I predicted YOU would say that @16:50:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUoSgxcfx0

And:

"Betty and Veronica? No idea what you're talking about. GUess Me iS dumb-dum..."

Really? Come on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfSO8YS0sWg


Really! No idea who they are or what the reference is. If you expect me to study the history of "Betty and Veronica" to get your point I ain't gonna do it. Speak straight please.

You predicted that I would ask you about your sleeping patterns and mental state? Where? All I saw from that part of the video was some tirade toward a "Mr. Jones" apparently accusing you of being paranoid and narcissistic?

If you are intelligent do you really expect people to just sit down and watch a number of videos you recommend with no idea why or what they are watching?

You see, I learned – first hand (because I'm really not such a dumb-ass), that I “access” knowledge – the Mind of God made manifest – Reality – the Laws of Nature, etc, etc, etc, because – in so doing, that “knowledge” enables me to neurophysilogically experience the effects that understanding the laws of nature are capable of causing, and so, when “I” come someplace like this, or ANYPLACE actually, all I am concerned with is communicating my learned understanding to other like minded people - “human beings,” you see Badger? Only say “yes,” Badger – because, remember, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROVING SOMETHING ABSTRACTLY.


It would help a great deal for me if you simply said what you were talking about. Why are YOU WRITING IN BOLD as if I have disputed what you're saying when I have no idea what it is you really are saying?

Wind it back and start again. I am more than willing to read your words if they make sense. I am not yet willing to watch loads of videos (it is not really something I like to do, I prefer reading source texts and only sift youtube and such for the occasional pointer on things that interest me.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 15th, 2017, 3:22 pm 

Badger: I was here in 2011, and said I would be back – here I am.

But, I can admit mine is a unique situation, so I will elaborate, because I know you were not here yet, plus because of its uniqueness.

So anyways, when someone usually does something such as what I've done, they usually submit it – the proposal, to their “community,” such as when Einstein proposed E=Mc2, then their community tests the proposal, and – upon proving the proposal, contacts the media, and, then, the media introduces the (new) idea to the world.

Unfortunately, my primary development was in art, and – in addition, I have no formal education, so my situation is a very unique dilemma, in that, had I not been expelled from the formal academic world, I would have never developed my understandings, but – because I was expelled from that world, I had/have no access to it, in addition, and again, what I did was develop understandings in art, first.

So, I don't know if you know it, but the art world is the single most corrupt society in the history of the world, actually functioning as the world's biggest ponzi scheme, so large in fact, that it makes Bernie Madoff seem like a Girl Scout selling empty boxes of cookies.

And the entire scam is based upon two primary concepts, which is the art world telling the world that Pablo Picasso pictorially represented the 4th dimension – and Einstein's relativity, and that Jackson Pollock (and all abstractionists) pictorially represented “music,” while including: Mozart – Beethoven, etc, etc, etc, and no they did not – I did, actually learn how to produce the pictorial equivalent of Einstein's relativity AND “music,” factually.

So, do you see my dilemma – In that, because I have no formal education, when I first learned how to produce the pictorial equivalent of Einstein's relativity, and music, I “knew” what it was, because I “saw” it, but did not know the “words” to define it, any of it, so I submitted “it” to the art community, and learned first hand of their corruption.

Ok so now, what I, first, learned how to do was develop the ability to “see,” literally, “music,” which is, again literally, simply the introduction of a new kind of calculus, trigonometry, and projective geometry, which I imagine is equivalent to GPS, with a human being performing the functions within their individual three dimensional minds, and in real time.

So this is my proposal: A person can develop the ability to literally “see” music, beginning with the ability to “see” individual notes – effectually functioning as simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations, also simultaneously functioning as individually effectuated vectors and derivatives, and so forth – as is explained in my videos, then learn how to harness the functions, abstract them, and then reapply them, and then expand upon all of those concepts, to produce, purposefully produce, a literal visual musical equivalent, actually effectually functioning as the mathematically verifiable pictorial equivalent of Einstein's relativity, and the Mind of God made manifest.

Now, to fully understand exactly why the media would NEVER want to admit what I have done, simply understand this: Who do you think owns EVERY Picasso, Pollock, etc, etc, etc, in the ENTIRE world, that would be all of the Big Brother stations that control the entire world.

Which tells us what?

Welcome to 1984....
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 16th, 2017, 12:58 am 

This is not really telling me much.

Cross sensory perception is well known. We have even seen people blinded be able to use their other faculties to "see" again. I have met a few people who've been able to do this, usually when they were in a psychotic state due to fever or induced through taking psychoactive substances. They report being able to taste different colours, and see sounds.

You then have some conspiracy theory about art I am quite unable to grasp (why is it significant?)

Also, what does any of this has to do with ethics? How, in brief, do you propose people train themselves to gain cross-sensory perception?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Braininvat on July 16th, 2017, 12:12 pm 

Hello from a moderator: the OP doesn't have a summary of your argument, just a collection of links. This doesn't really meet the guidelines for a philosophy thread, and I am unsure why it would go in Ethics, when it seems more about metaphysics. The more recent synaesthesia digression seems off-topic, as well. One option we have for such threads is the Odds and Ends forum, where this will now go. I recommend anyone interested read up on what constitutes a scientific hypothesis and what standards of proof would pertain. We have many searchable threads on that very topic. Thanks.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6502
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 16th, 2017, 5:40 pm 

Moderator - Braininvat:

"MM: Please shorten the above post, remove offtopic digression, and make whatever point you wish to make on the OP topic."

I sincerely do not know what is "off topic," in regards to "ethics," "morality," as I was asked to elaborate on, in addition, the only paragraph that is off that topic, is the one addressing "cross wiring" which I was originally told was "the " original "digression" which is an "area" I NEVER addressed, as what I define has NOTHING to do with "cross wiring."
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby Braininvat on July 16th, 2017, 9:59 pm 

The topic, as printed at the top of the page, and presumably devised by you is "Scientific Proof of God's Existence." If you look up philosophy, perhaps an introductory entry in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you can find the branch of this field that best fits with that topic. It's not ethics. The nature of a scientific proof would fall under philosophy of science, and the nature of a purported deity would be theology or metaphysics - in this case, probably metaphysics, since you are addressing a deity as a scientfic postulate. I still have no idea what your "proof" is, since you have offered no summary of what it is, or will be, in the OP. I don't know how I can be much clearer on this, and I've asked you twice now to fix the OP or amend it to meet this basic forum standard. If you won't take the trouble to study the relevant field and literature, or post a coherent statement, why should I or anyone else bother to look past the OP and its citation dump?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6502
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby DragonFly on July 16th, 2017, 10:25 pm 

Humans would be dopamine-driven robots at any point of history—an astounding revelation that overwhelms all disciplines of study of human behavior!

This seems to stand against a 'God' design of human nature.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Scientific Proof of God's Existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 17th, 2017, 1:19 am 

MrMikeludo » July 17th, 2017, 5:40 am wrote:Moderator - Braininvat:

"MM: Please shorten the above post, remove offtopic digression, and make whatever point you wish to make on the OP topic."

I sincerely do not know what is "off topic," in regards to "ethics," "morality," as I was asked to elaborate on, in addition, the only paragraph that is off that topic, is the one addressing "cross wiring" which I was originally told was "the " original "digression" which is an "area" I NEVER addressed, as what I define has NOTHING to do with "cross wiring."


Well, the thing is (for me at least) I have no idea what you are talking about and really don't want to sit down for a few hours and watch your videos and listen to music.

I am left guessing what you're wanting to discuss? Put it plain and simple and express your opinions/views/knowledge on the matter so we can talk.

There are mentions of art critique, political use of art and offer things. There are also obscure references to characters from some old comic? What do you expect me to make of all of this? Is this just some psychological game or have you something that you really wish to talk about?

At the moment I don't see a topic. I see some disperate associations of various areas that don't come together to present anything much I can get a handle on.

For my sake I advise starting a new topic on these forums and taking one particular direction toward what you are trying to say at a time rather than expecting me to sift through hours of you talking about something of which you keep hidden.

I do think your use of the term "God" has not helped you here at all. I can take it you are talking about sciences lack of ability to assess subjective matters for obvious reasons. Here there is an association with how we approach art. Whilst science can help us understand certain patterns in human perception and explore "patterns" of "beauty" the aesthetics are not explicit for us to apply empirical measurement.

We can talk about science helping us understand that symmetry is often seen as being beautiful, yet experience also tells us that the most subjectively "beautiful" objects of perception exhibit asymmetrical properties.

Is any of this close to what you wish to talk about? I have no idea because you've given me no choice but to guess what you want to talk about. Given the amount of time I am willing to put aside for you right now this is the best I can do.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests