SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Talking about eyes, I find that some shapes and colors of eyes are more beautiful than others. Some eye shapes I don't care for at all, but others trigger some deep emotion which can be understood as desire or attraction. Now, I'm certain that the eye shapes I love are not necessarily the same eye shapes Cooligan loves. So does this mean that Cooligan is wrong, or I'm wrong, in loving one or the other? And does it mean that God only created the eye shapes we can agree are attractive? It's just crazy to think so. It's obviously individual feelings, not universal. The feeling is universal, but the object that triggers the feeling is not. Lemme guess, "Asian Eyes"? Certain types of them to be exact, at least in my case. Oh yes, OP, Atheists can have a DEEP appreciation for beauty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Lemme guess, "Asian Eyes"? Certain types of them to be exact, at least in my case. Close, very close. Actually I've seen eyes that are a mix between Japanese and European that are just extremely sexy. Then I've seen some other Asian eye combos that are just awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Lemme guess, "Asian Eyes"? Certain types of them to be exact, at least in my case. Close, very close. Actually I've seen eyes that are a mix between Japanese and European that are just extremely sexy. Then I've seen some other Asian eye combos that are just awful. Getting closer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 One more and I promise to stop hijacking... hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 One more and I promise to stop hijacking... hehe No...No..its okay....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Gah! Now you contradicted yourself. If it is intrinsically beautiful, then it is NOT subjective. Intrinsic means that it has it without your subjective acknowledgment of it being so. An Alpha Centaurian slug, is beautiful in its own sense, but you haven't learned it yet, and you can't appreciate it, is that how you see things? Intrinsic means that it has a value in an universal and objective way, and not subjective or from a personal viewpoint. If someone can see the sunset and say it's ugly, then it proves you wrong! An intrinsic beauty would have to be and always be truly so for everyone, at every time, everywhere. That's what intrinsic means. I'll admit, I regret the original 'sunset' line of questioning. Didn't really convey what I wanted to say. And, you're right, I did contradict myself. I'm more than happy now to recant my 'nature is intrinsically beautiful' assertion now, especially after reading Evolution beyond's post. A more accurate reflection of my thoughts are that there appears to be something in nature that everyone is attached to or finds beautiful, and in this do I found some sort of spirituality. I would have a much different opinion of nature and beauty if there was someone that simply found everything in the natural world to be ugly. Talking about eyes, I find that some shapes and colors of eyes are more beautiful than others. Some eye shapes I don't care for at all, but others trigger some deep emotion which can be understood as desire or attraction. Now, I'm certain that the eye shapes I love are not necessarily the same eye shapes Cooligan loves. So does this mean that Cooligan is wrong, or I'm wrong, in loving one or the other? And does it mean that God only created the eye shapes we can agree are attractive? It's just crazy to think so. It's obviously individual feelings, not universal. The feeling is universal, but the object that triggers the feeling is not. And so it is this universal feeling that I'm exploring, not the triggers. Hope that cleaned things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Even if every single intelligent creature in the universe agreed on a subjective judgement about something being beautiful - it still wouldn't reflect any intrinsic feature of that object - it would only reflect the psychology of those intelligent creatures that found it so enjoyable to look at. Great post. I really enjoyed it. I haven't study much philosophy, and reading things like this makes me wish I had. Using the 'intrinsic north' example made a lot of sense to me. You are completely right, it isn't the state of nature that I'm interested in, it is the human reaction to it that I find fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 2. What awe and splendor! How complex, yet beautiful! It is so amazing that life, all life, started out so simple, yet evolved to such splendor! Imagine what it must look like on other life bearing worlds, or better yet, imagine if you could survive on the surface of jupiter and behold the wonder of the great earth-sized storms! How awesome it must be! Yet there is no person there to marvel at it... So god didn't create those fantastic places, the fires of the sun, those majestic plums of explosions, or the ice-lands of uranus, god did not make these wonders for us, we cannot behold them. And what wonders greater exist beyond our telescopes? Surely a god cannot exist, there is too much out there, for it to be directed by any intellegence. The idea that the universe is just too large and vast to revolve around one man and one planet is a very valid point, one that I haven't encountered or thought much about before. This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. Before telescopes were created, humanity never got to enjoy a closer look at the surface of the moon and until we finally got to land on the moon, no one had beheld an earth-rise. And there may be beauty beyond the outer reaches of our telescopes, maybe even deep in our own planet, that this generation will never get to witness, but may be enjoyed by our ancestors. I'm glad you brought up life bearing worlds. If we do find life on other planets, I will have to deeply pondered many of my god based beliefs. Cascading, or snow-balling explains a lot. Like our own technology, we start with a wheel, someone makes a cart, then a chariot, then a car, then a... well, you get it. Nature is like this, build blocks forever evolving. It all starts with SIMPLE like the "big bang", then events happen, snow-ball, and things take shape. I know this is a radically simplified version of "life the universe and everything" but it fits far far better then a "god did it" theory would. I know you are not xtian (or I think you are not), but you sound like you have some doubts. Here's a picture I would like you to see, click it to make it larger: You are right that I have doubts, but I am a follower of Christ. I have already been called a fundamentalist, but I don't think I am. Does anyone have a test I can take to determine if I am a fundamentalist? Using the example of the evolution of our technology compared to the evolution of nature is big hang-up for me in the sense that I can comprehend the intelligence of man making things better and more sophisticated, but I really have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of a seemingly chaotic nature doing the same thing on its own. But I will never deny the evidence of evolution or believe that the grand canyon was carved in two days by a big puddle of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The idea that the universe is just too large and vast to revolve around one man and one planet is a very valid point, one that I haven't encountered or thought much about before. This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. You should look up information about the size of the Universe. I don't think you have fully grasped it yet. Using the example of the evolution of our technology compared to the evolution of nature is big hang-up for me in the sense that I can comprehend the intelligence of man making things better and more sophisticated, but I really have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of a seemingly chaotic nature doing the same thing on its own. But I will never deny the evidence of evolution or believe that the grand canyon was carved in two days by a big puddle of water. Because it is not totally chaotic. Nature is structured and organized and chaotic at the same time. There is a new branch of science that deals with Chaos. And Chaos have levels of order, it's just that chaos is more a question of perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "seemingly chaotic" Seemingly is mighty big word... for a 'seemingly' chaotic system take a look at Mandelbrot or Wolfram... from very simple rules you get immense complexity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. Before telescopes were created, humanity never got to enjoy a closer look at the surface of the moon and until we finally got to land on the moon, no one had beheld an earth-rise. And there may be beauty beyond the outer reaches of our telescopes, maybe even deep in our own planet, that this generation will never get to witness, but may be enjoyed by our ancestors." So, you contradict your self... the scale is wrong but it was made for us to 'enjoy'... and I'm sure my long dead maternal grandfather (a direct ancestor) will enjoy it all the more for being dead Jesus, Mary, Joseph and their little donkey, George! Do they not teach ENGLISH these days, or just not what the difference is between descendent, ancestor and antecedent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Because it is not totally chaotic. Nature is structured and organized and chaotic at the same time. There is a new branch of science that deals with Chaos. And Chaos have levels of order, it's just that chaos is more a question of perception. I'm always up for a good read if anyone has any references on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. The fact that you even let this thought cross your mind, or even go so far as saying it in a post, tells my you are far to void of common-sense for a thoughtful discussion. The sheer, utter, unrestrained stupidity of that sentence made you plummet to the bottom of my respect meter. That is the most egotistical thing I think I have heard all day. Why (duh, cough, sputter..) in your wildest LSD laden trips, would you EVER think things beyond the possibility of any telescope EVER seeing it, could even remotely be possible to be created by a "god" FOR US (let alone anyone else)? I want the name of that drug! Kinda sorry I sorta defended you for making the OP... Well, it WAS a good question, minus the psychotic reply to just one of many good answers... I think it's getting time for the yellow squiggle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 "This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. Before telescopes were created, humanity never got to enjoy a closer look at the surface of the moon and until we finally got to land on the moon, no one had beheld an earth-rise. And there may be beauty beyond the outer reaches of our telescopes, maybe even deep in our own planet, that this generation will never get to witness, but may be enjoyed by our ancestors." So, you contradict your self... the scale is wrong but it was made for us to 'enjoy'... and I'm sure my long dead maternal grandfather (a direct ancestor) will enjoy it all the more for being dead Jesus, Mary, Joseph and their little donkey, George! Do they not teach ENGLISH these days, or just not what the difference is between descendent, ancestor and antecedent? If anything, I will learn the value of proofreading from this forum. Thanks Grandpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The idea that the universe is just too large and vast to revolve around one man and one planet is a very valid point, one that I haven't encountered or thought much about before. This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. You should look up information about the size of the Universe. I don't think you have fully grasped it yet. Uhm... Well yeah that might be so, perhaps he does not realize, maybe I bite his head off too soon, my bad if so, but.. but.. the stupid... it... burns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Oh, it's nothing personal on that one God-boy... it irritates me no matter WHO does that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I have already been called a fundamentalist, but I don't think I am. Does anyone have a test I can take to determine if I am a fundamentalist? Yes, it is as follows. Anyone who is capable of seriously asking the question "am I a fundamentalist?" is therefore determined to be said fundamentalist by virtue of failing a subliminal IQ test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I'm always up for a good read if anyone has any references on this. Search on Chaos Theory, or take a look at Mandelbrot sets, read anything about Quantum Mechanics or about the Uncertainty Principle, or ... (some of these things are extremely old) Secondly, search on Age of the Universe and Size of the Universe on Google. Think about this. Here you have some rough estimates. If we could invent a space travel that was the speed of light (currently the fastest theoretical speed), we wouldn't even be able to go to the uttermost edge of the Universe before our Star (the Sun) would run out of juice. We wouldn't even get 1/20 of the distance! One estimate is that the Universe is 150 billion light years wide, and our Sun will turn to a red giant in about 5-7 billions years from now. We will have evolved beyond all comprehension, and before this even happens, Earth won't be a place where we can live anymore (whatever kind of species human has evolved to). Most life probably dead since long, long time. So even this far in the distance, and cruising space in that extreme speed, we barely would have scratched the surface of the size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Think about this. Here you have some rough estimates. If we could invent a space travel that was the speed of light (currently the fastest theoretical speed), we wouldn't even be able to go to the uttermost edge of the Universe before our Star (the Sun) would run out of juice. We wouldn't even get 1/20 of the distance! One estimate is that the Universe is 150 billion light years wide, and our Sun will turn to a red giant in about 5-7 billions years from now. We will have evolved beyond all comprehension, and before this even happens, Earth won't be a place were we can live anymore (whatever kind of species human has evolved to). Most life probably dead since long, long time. So even this far in the distance, and cruising space in that extreme speed, we barely would have scratched the surface of the size. Yup, and you are talking about JUST one universe too, it is very possible there are endless amounts of them, at varing intervals as well as the same, all with a big bang story to tell... scale.... wow It boggles the mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 This is my initial reaction: even though there are parts of the universe that we are unable to see does not mean that they weren't created for us. The fact that you even let this thought cross your mind, or even go so far as saying it in a post, tells my you are far to void of common-sense for a thoughtful discussion. The sheer, utter, unrestrained stupidity of that sentence made you plummet to the bottom of my respect meter. That is the most egotistical thing I think I have heard all day. Why (duh, cough, sputter..) in your wildest LSD laden trips, would you EVER think things beyond the possibility of any telescope EVER seeing it, could even remotely be possible to be created by a "god" FOR US (let alone anyone else)? I want the name of that drug! Kinda sorry I sorta defended you for making the OP... Well, it WAS a good question, minus the psychotic reply to just one of many good answers... I think it's getting time for the yellow squiggle... I am gathering that you believe that if the universe was created by a god, than any location that is not able to ever be photographed serves no purpose to mankind. Is this correct? If I'm understanding you wrong, please clarify. My goal here is to have an honest discussion with you guys in order to learn & consider things that I haven't thought about before. If your goal is to simply bite my head off and make me go away, I have no problem leaving where I'm not wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Go or stay, immaterial... you claim you want to learn, then learn... just be aware that some things are going to hit some nerves... it's nothing much personal in it, unless you think 1 Tim 2 is good, then I shall hound you mercilessly as the misogynist monster you are... same with quoting Leviticus or Romans to justify disliking gay folk simply because they're gay... You hit one of SWIM's nerves... he'll get over it, same as I do... remember, some people are more damaged than others here... and have some odd ticks left over from the ass raping they got at the hands of Jesus botherers... it's why it's called EX-Chrisitans. Ex from the latin, and in this case meaning 'no longer' or 'formerly'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 as a final comment on the matter, I don't usually exposit this much on WHY god botherers get a rough ride for apparently innocuous comment... I must see some spark in you lacking in others I just rip the head off and suck out their eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Thanks for info Grandpa, I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I am gathering that you believe that if the universe was created by a god, than any location that is not able to ever be photographed serves no purpose to mankind. Is this correct? If I'm understanding you wrong, please clarify. No, buzzzzz wrong again. I don't believe in GOD, and I don't believe all of infinite space, including ALL that outside our own universe was all "created" I believe it always has existed, different because all is in a state of change, but always WAS and always will be. Worlds, galaxies, even whole universes come and go, but always there is something going on, somewhere, not being BLINKED into existence by some I dream of jeanie god or / gods... If you even mildly gathered that I believe in god from my other posts you really do have a reading impairment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Yet another nerve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts