Why is anything simple? "Define simple". :roll: Anyway, it's a simple description of concepts that people make ridiculously complicated, hair-brained arguments for. I don't particularily care about how simple or not simple it is. — Noble Dust

Well, you claimed that "it's way simpler...". I wanna know how and why, it's that. I'd like to know what complexity and simplicity are, you seem to have a good handle on these matters. :chin:

Let's make progress! Shall we?

It's so simple that you can't understand it. That's all I have, sorry.

Noble Dust is right Agent! The emanation of the gods is what we call the scientific universe.

It's so simple that you can't understand it. That's all I have, sorry. — Noble Dust

Are you saying that you too can't understand it because "it's so simple"? :chin:

So our powers of comprehension hit a wall as it gets both simpler and more complex. Why do you think that is? Any ideas?

emanation — EugeneW

Jizz! :lol:

No; I understand it but you don't. You think too logically, so you can't understand it.

No; I understand it but you don't. You think too logically, so you can't understand it. — Noble Dust

So, you're being illogical, but then how can one understand something, even if that thing is simple? Logic is the essence of comprehension, oui?

Logic is the essence of comprehension, oui? — Agent Smith

No.

too logically — Noble Dust

Too logically? Explain that to me, please. How can one be too logical?

No — Noble Dust

What is then?

I don't know what "the essence of comprehension" is, but it's not logic.

I don't know what "the essence of comprehension" is, but it's not logic — Noble Dust

You mean to say you don't understand how you understand?

:chin:

No.

No — Noble Dust

Then explain this apparently novel way of comprehension to me. It, as per you, has nothing to do with logic. What could it be, I wonder?

It could be they used their other side, not sure. They didn't tell me about the mechanism of creation, my love...

It could be they used their other side, not sure. They didn't tell me about the mechanism of creation, my love... — EugeneW

:smile:

What could it be, I wonder? — Agent Smith

"I winder"...
Oops, sorry, "I wonder"...

"I winder"... — EugeneW

:confused:

Explain to me why logic is the nexus through which comprehension moves.

The logic of creation: the gods were bored. From bacteria to whale gods, from tree gods to parrot gods. Endlessly making war and love became too much. Existential void. Power of creation-> the eternal universe. Now they only watch to fill the heavenly emptiness. Let's not disappoint them!

Explain to me why logic is the nexus through which comprehension moves — Noble Dust

First off, comprehension and logic go hand in hand; eveey schoolboy knows that. To say "I understand" is to claim I can see how the propositions in question are logically connected. Why would I need to explain this, I frankly am puzzled by this demand!

Second, there could be alternatives to logic, as you claimed in your previous posts. You claim that you understand it. Your task, insofar as the two of us are concerned, is to show me this other way of apprehension.

Let's make progress!

To say "I understand" is to claim I can see how the propositions in question are logically connected. — Agent Smith

Not at all. What a sad education.

Let's make progress! — Agent Smith

Yes, let's...

Well...

What's this new system (of comprehension) you have?

It's not new, you just missed out on it.

Anyway, I didn't mean that as a joke or an affront. I just think we're talking past one another here.

It's not new, you just missed out on it. — Noble Dust

Can you provide a link to a reliable resource?

Forget it, our conversation, as it seems to me, does nothing to advance the OP.

That said, I was hoping to inject mysticism and irrationalism into the discussion if only to broaden the inquiry.

Some questions remain unanswered though.

1. It's simple and I don't understand it while others do. :sad:

2. Comprehension can be delinked from logic. Intriguing to say the least.

3. Noble Dust, you've been for the most part evading my questions. Whatever floats your boat, señor/señorita.

Have a good day. Let's not hijack this thread.

What, in your view, is the nexus between science, art, and god? — Agent Smith

Human Agency.

Can you provide a link to a reliable resource? — Agent Smith

Of course not; The reliable source is you. If you want to inject mysticism, then start here.

Human Agency. — 180 Proof

Human agency? Capabilities + Constraints, how exactly does the two link up art, science, and God to produce a pleasing/satisfying, or not, picture (of reality)?

Atheist public figures like Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have gone on record that their lot is a bit impoverished in the art sector, the theists enjoying a rich assortment of religious art like paintings, songs, and music. All 3 have also confessed to feeling inspired by religious art, especially the music.

It's not the religious content of music in this case that's having an effect on people - for Barker, Dawkins, and Dennett, the lyrics are semantically empty, meaningless as it were. The power of music to transcend boundaries like that between theists and atheists is art with a foot in both camps, oui?

Scientists too experience music in similar, sublime ways, and it's been repeated often enough that scientific equations when beheld or pondered upon and grasped produce mental states very like ones we see when listening to a favorite song or score.