So I decide which god/gods there are. Funny. — SolarWind

You don't decide anything. The gods are there. For me there are many, for some there might be one, for others they don't exist at all.

And I bet its a complimentary opposite, if we examined both attitudes in the proper context. — Yohan

It's not a complementary opposite. It's no complement at all. It's the lacking of symmetry or its complement. If we examine symmetry and it's complement in the proper context than we end up in math, which can have beauty (symmetry is fashion in physics). But the most beautiful math is in which both are not present. Now you can call this a complement again, but then you are stuck in the symmetry-asymmetry dichotomy.

One question would also be what gender God is. Does he/she/it have characteristics, how one could decide that? — SolarWind

It's not decidable. It depends on how you view God or the gods.

Stop being tedious. An omnipotent being can do anything and thus can divest herself of her omnipotence if she so pleases. — Bartricks

I just asked what you meant. What you mean by "unless it's in the office"? God just can't do things that can't be done. He's omnipotent in the sense that he can do all things that can be done. Which is not everything.

You can't answer a question with a question, can you? — Bartricks

Unless you don't understand the question.

And what does that mean when it's at home? — Bartricks

When reality is at home?

There's no problem. An omnipotent being has the power to give up their omnipotence. Yes? — Bartricks

No. They are omnipotent within the realm of what's possible.

And R Buckminster Fuller: "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. — Yohan

I have exactly the opposite attitude.

Beauty is symmetrical relationship. A harmony of complimentary opposites. — Yohan

How does this explain the beauty of my dog jumping up out of a dark ultramarine moonlit blanket of low mist?

Ah, well there you go. I have. And there aren't words to describe it.
now — Bartricks

I have them. If I see the painting (be it for real or not, I'm not a fetishist) I get the feeling of giving her a wake-up slam in the face, to make her stop giving me that double smile. Leonardo must have had a hard time with that lady, self-assured serenity. So it does provoke a feeling in me.

You're a philistine. Or you haven't actually seen it. — Bartricks

You mean Mona? No, I haven't actually seen her. And luckily. Spared me money for the entrance ticket.

Beautifull sculpture. Looks like the thinker has done a bit too much thinking.

It's a thin line between beauty and ugliness. Maybe there is not even a line at all. It's all in the eyes and ears or nose of the beholder though. You can construct abstract schemes for explaining it, like I read in a thread here about art, but this merely relocates both beauty and ugliness. Besides the formally pleasing aspects of an artwork, there are of course many other ones.

No, I didn't. That's why I used the approximately equal sign: "≈≈" — TheMadFool

No, I didn't, but you make it appear as if it's a rational number, while in fact every constant can be given as its inverse (1/...). True, it's the only one shown as an inverse.

Also, what if we find the rational approximation for all physical constants which as you seem to be aware all all irrational numbers. Does an interesting pattern emerge? — TheMadFool

I'm not sure to what kind of pattern you refer to. There might be rational approximations of constants, there might be not. The fine structure constant contains the Planck constant, among others. All fundamental constants must be measured. You can set them to one, one by one, but the last will always remain one that can't.

The difference it makes to your own personal aesthetic emotions depends on many many things including how receptive you are to certain styles — Olivier5

Sitting in a chair, beneath a soft-toned lamp, makes me appreciate van Gogh more than looking at his paintings in the museum.

Can you give an example? — Olivier5

I get more vitality from looking at ugly scenes like some dadaists show us. Or de Koninck. These big magic blacks give me bright shining light. Serenety even. The are not beauty, in my eyes. Beauty is superfluous.

In fact i said "theists would be radically reduced" and it is only my opinion of what would happen if humanity reach to immortality.
Not that I have a passion as to start a "crusade for vanishing theists". I have no problem with theists as long as they are not fanatics. I have a problem though with fanatics atheists also! — dimosthenis9

And the religious fanatics says: atheists would be radically reduced.

Like I said, immortality is a fairytale.

And that -- I suggest -- is precisely what people call beauty. — Olivier5

It isn't. An ugly scene can do just the same. Even more maybe.

Yes there is, obviously. The canvas is in 3d most of times, and all the colors and nuances cannot be reproduced on screen.
now — Olivier5

I don't mean the physical difference. I know how dear Mona looks like without ever having seen the painting myself. I can't imagine bursting into tears when seeing it for real. Maybe tears of boredom, as sprang up when seeing the de nachtwacht and de staalmeesters, for example. Though some of his paintings impressed me, like the view on the Amstel. But they did so when looking in a book.

How can you be sure about that? — dimosthenis9

All matter in the universe eventually accelerates away from each other, making the foundation of life impossible. On top of that, life can only develop in a Natural way.

Not fundamentalist at all. The strange thing is how you ended up to such conclusion.
And no didn't have any bad experience with religion either. In fact though an atheist I have much respect to theists. It's obvious from my previous posts here. — dimosthenis9

I ended up to that conclusion because of your language (as I explained implicitely): "atheists will be radically reduced".

Premise 1: somethings are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing.

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge. He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. If he is programmed it begs the question who is the programmer, which we can create another god and continue to infinity with other Gods. Which makes the whole idea obsolete.

This in turn makes his existence questionable. — Vanbrainstorm

In short, where did God got their morals from? They were just there, in the spacetime- and matter-free glorious and shining realm of their holy and undeniable existence, giving us the precious gift of life. We can follow them (and assign them properties like you do) or damn them. Take your pick.

Not sure how could be done. I could only guess by finding the answers for how the whole universe works and its purpose(if there is actually one). Or maybe if science one day makes possible immortality. — dimosthenis9

If you know how the universe works, to the fundamental level of spacetime and the truly basic matter fields in it, if a scientists like Dawkins declares that all life merely exists and acts because a proposed longing of selfish genes and memes to be passed through, then still you won't have the answer of why it's all ther. Science will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale.

Still probably some people would follow any kind of God for other reasons, but atheists then would have more "scientific claims" as to prove them wrong.
And theists would be radically reduced (especially if humanity ever make it to "escape" from death). — dimosthenis9

Science simply can't prove God to be non-existent. Theists radically reduced. Are you serious? If so, you sound just like a fundamentalist. So I hope you are not and take yourself too seriously, like fundamentalists do. I hope it's just meant to provoke. You had bad experiences with religion?

Truly conscious people — TheMadFool

Are there non-truly conscious people (apart from my wife)?

Still no.But especially since science knowledge hasn't reached there yet, God is still an open issue. — dimosthenis9

So you think when science has reached there, God is no more an open issue? How can science ever close that issue?

Is there a difference between seeing a painting in person, or from a picture book?

I was thinking exactly the same! :lol:

Well for me philosophical thinking is better indeed since gives you a deeper realization of morals and the actual reasons for acting "good" in societies. — dimosthenis9

Sorry! Wanted to comment and accidentally pushed the place-button.

Allright. A deeper realization of morals and the reason for it while living in a society. I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion.

But again I m not sure we could make a rule out of that. Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". It's a subjective matter after all. — dimosthenis9

You can't make a rule out of that indeed. It would be the same as religious fanatics do. Well, you can make a rule out of it as long you keep it for yourself.

can't accuse them of being wrong and me the right one, since me myself I don't have all the answers. — dimosthenis9

So if you have all the answers you can accuse them of being wrong?

Makes you dig deeper inside yourself and with not just following divine orders without any questioning them at all. — dimosthenis9

You don't like authority.

What existential void are you talking about? You think without gods the world is empty and amoral? If so, why you connect moral with God?

. He relies heavily on the case of the phenomenal zombie, which is functionally and psychologically identical to him, but has no phenomenal experience. — Pantagruel

Then he must be a phenomenal zombie with phenomenal experience.

Yes, there is clearly something wrong with her. — Bartricks

Clearly, there is something wrong with you. When I see Mona, the only thing I want is to run away as fast as possible and release a dump. She is ugly as hell. Imagine I would find her in my bed, giving me that same grin when she makes me... Brrrrrrr!

Beauty lies in my dog jumping out of a moonlit blanket of mist. Dew glistening thousand colored in the morning autumn sun, trying to touch it and realizing it glistens from fungi on a pile of dogshit.

don't think leather ybags of firewater on a couple of stalks have evolved so that every moment of their brief lives is a pleasure. If you like, the world is open sore. But it's less open and bleeding than it used to be. And we can and are trying to improve things every day (well some of us, sometimes.) — hanaH

WTF are ybags (I'm not America, speaking of which, I just woke up from a terrible dream; election time in America and Trump was making a big chance,,, I felt fear. Saw the end of the world...Thank you science!). Whatever they are (I searched and only saw men with silly ears, in the form of an y?). Why can't they evolve so every moment in their lives is a pleasure (I'm not expecting a scientific answer). I don't like the world be open sore, whatever you mean by that. The world is more open and bleeding than it used to be. We try to improve things every day, but it seems to get worse every day.

So it goes — hanaH

How many times my mum said that! "So it goes". That's just the way it is. And we can do nothing about it. Everyone can do something about it. The grip of science is just too strong, as I have noted here too, reading various comments. But that's just the way it is. From where comes this eager to know, to cut up, to analyze, to solve problems, to invent formal schemes, to categorize, standardize, normalize, reduce, integrate, differentiate, function, rationalize, epistemize, be logical, etc? These things can be fun, but why do these things have the upper hand these days? Of course I'm abstracting here myself now, but it's a philosophy forum, so...

I'm suggesting that it is the assumption of equality of people that leads those who assume such equality to not accepting personal confidence as evidence of truth.

If we're all equal in some relevant way, then why should I accept your personal confidence as evidence of truth, notably when you differ from me? — baker

This suggests an absolute truth, equal for all. Equal in some relevant way? What on Earth are you talking about?

Personally I don't evangelize, nor do I expect religion or conspiracy theory to go away — hanaH

Same holds for me. I don't expect science to go away. I don't take it very seriously though (but many seem so) If it helps my mum with her backpack, Allright (though the urge to cut up and divide frightens me somehow). Is the Earth flat. Seems so from a plane. Is the Earth a ball? Seems so from outer space. When I walk in the forrest it's neither. Unluckily, thanks to science, and it's immersion in economy, most forrests in the world have been mowed down, or replaced, and science walks behind it to find out how bad the consequences will be. I don't have to be a scientist to know that! But I live in this world. And have to make the best of it. I think it's a pity though that so much culture and nature is gone. Though material culture has never been richer.

Peer-review and exposure to criticism lets inferior ideas die by exposure. — hanaH

Damned! Sounds like the inquisition! Inferior ideas? What are these? Who are the so often quoted peers that review? They are people too. Who says their own ideas are not "inferior"? You mean scientific ideas? Other non-scientific ideas about the structure of reality,usually dismissed as non-sense and not corresponding to the scientific reality, which is just one among many. Now I don't care if these kinds of scientists consider their own ideas superior to those of others but they have the power to kill those other ideas. They wanna rob other people, with non-scientific ideas, from the very ideas that give meaning to their life. You can see people like a highly organized collection of elementary rishons, or like light and shiny undivisible forms of blueish elf-stuff, to name something. If one has the last perception of reality, then who are scientists to say that they fool themselves? Xenophanes still rules suppreme, so it looks.

Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker

What evidence for what truth are you talking about?

Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker

Strange assumption.

Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate. — hanaH

Wisdom to write on a tile and hang it proudly on your living room wall.

The same wisdom can be applied to the world of ideas and various realities that roulette still in our world. I say still because many of them are simply killed by the scientific reality. Those that represent them, that is. Science and political power are still happily married, like the state and religion once were. It's time we get freed from this unholey alliance to give all children in the world a better future, if still possible.

I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". — Gnomon

Why not? Distrust?

One way to understand the value is reproducibility is to think of the technology that results, which we prefer to be reliable. In general, science can be understood as a search for the "buttons & levers" of nature (so that we can invent vaccines and airplanes and internets.) (Yes, it's also perhaps a search for relatively useless truth.) — hanaH

Now here I fully agree. It would be quite frustrating if airplanes would suddenly open up underneath, hough parachutes could be helpful here. If their ropes don't turn into gum suddenly, that is (unless this happened each time). It would be very frustrating if vaccines were suddenly eaten by viruses suddenly. Or if the internet turned wild. Luckily Nature is reproducible in some cases. But most things are simple not reproducible (like the human mind, though attempts are made to reproduce even that in the incompatible form of computers). Though many things are. But why always constructing new reproducible structures? What's the big deal?

Yeah! Man, I get so tired sometimes if I see how that endless pursuit of scientific, so-called objective knowledge, is emphasized and propagated by our beloved scientists. Now if they like that it's upto them, but they (and they have power) wanna transform the world into one big Lego land and make everyone adopt their worldview. Every colorfull spontaneous young child is trained at our schools and filled with knowledge of the objective reality they have in mind. Though I sound a bit pessimistically or dramatically now! Nevertheless, I have good hope for the future, although my mind tells me that something has to go wrong globally because of that endless inflating pursuit of knowledge going hand in hand with a growing production of goods based on this knowledge. That need for growth has invaded the world (seek hide!)! Accidentally I just saw a small kid who made a new record in dj-ing (having fun though!). The motto seems to be "more, deeper, further, higher, longer, smaller, brighter, heavier, lighter, wtf-er?" nowadays.

When I first mistakenly said "repeatability" (when I really meant reproducibility), that was just the non-scientist in me tipping my hat to, or stipulating to what I thought science demanded as part of it's protocols. — James Riley

Don't think too admiringly about science though. Or do so, if you want to. That's not upto me. I don't take it too seriously (although it's consequences are, at least, when institutionalized, and all that knowledge provides a good way to do that). It's just one worldview amongst many. Many scientists claim it's the only viable view though. At the expense of others, as science and politics are tightly interwoven in our days. And the old Greek started this attitude (Xenophanes, who reported the existence of one and only reality, one God, independent of us as a reaction to the many present in those good old days). :smile: