vince torley says:
"By objective I mean not purely in the eye of the beholder. More precisely, by ‘objectively beautiful’ I mean: anything that you derive pleasure from contemplating, for reasons independent of your own personal or cultural preferences, or your biological identity. If something is objectively beautiful, you would expect someone else to like it, irrespective of their identity, culture or species. I would expect a Martian to appreciate the beauty of Euler’s identity, for instance. See my reply to Elizabeth Liddle. I think I’ve made a strong case in this essay that mathematical beauty is objective, and that it is found in the cosmos."
That's nothing but gobbledegook and you should know it. You really don't have a clue when it comes to objectivity, but then, why would you? You believe in and promote totally subjective religious fairy tales. You think that your subjective beliefs are objective simply because YOU believe in them.
Tell me vince, is the smell of a well used outhouse or a sun baked corpse "beautiful" to normal humans? It could be said that an underlying law of nature has something to do with that smell. Is pleasure derived from smelling outhouses or corpses? Does the smell of an outhouse or a corpse have anything to do with personal or cultural preferences? It could possibly have something to do with personal preferences, but would anyone other than an abnormal person derive pleasure from smelling or contemplating the smell of an outhouse or a corpse?
To me, there are many beautiful things in nature, including some things that other people would call ugly (or worse) but there are many things that I would never describe as beautiful, and the so-called laws of nature are no different from anything else when it comes to "beauty". It's a matter of opinion. My opinion about what is beautiful is not scientific or objective and neither is yours. Ask a person who struggles with math if math is beautiful. It's also very likely that many people who are good at math wouldn't describe it as "beautiful", whether the math relates to the laws of nature, the cosmos, or anything else.
Oh, and going off on a "biological identity", "species", "Martian" sidetrack doesn't help your assertions.
And the bottom line is that alleged "beauty" in some things or everything doesn't prove anything about an alleged god.
You IDiots are showing more and more what's really behind your agenda. You long ago ran out ideas and arguments that you allege are scientific (but aren't), so you're resorting more and more to religious mumbo-jumbo in your desperation.
Ya know, if you guys would just keep your wacky beliefs to yourselves and quit trying to take over the world and cram your fairy tales into science and every aspect of everyone's life, you just might not get any shit from people who don't want anything to do with your bullshit beliefs and agenda.
"By objective I mean not purely in the eye of the beholder. More precisely, by ‘objectively beautiful’ I mean: anything that you derive pleasure from contemplating, for reasons independent of your own personal or cultural preferences, or your biological identity. If something is objectively beautiful, you would expect someone else to like it, irrespective of their identity, culture or species. I would expect a Martian to appreciate the beauty of Euler’s identity, for instance. See my reply to Elizabeth Liddle. I think I’ve made a strong case in this essay that mathematical beauty is objective, and that it is found in the cosmos."
That's nothing but gobbledegook and you should know it. You really don't have a clue when it comes to objectivity, but then, why would you? You believe in and promote totally subjective religious fairy tales. You think that your subjective beliefs are objective simply because YOU believe in them.
Tell me vince, is the smell of a well used outhouse or a sun baked corpse "beautiful" to normal humans? It could be said that an underlying law of nature has something to do with that smell. Is pleasure derived from smelling outhouses or corpses? Does the smell of an outhouse or a corpse have anything to do with personal or cultural preferences? It could possibly have something to do with personal preferences, but would anyone other than an abnormal person derive pleasure from smelling or contemplating the smell of an outhouse or a corpse?
To me, there are many beautiful things in nature, including some things that other people would call ugly (or worse) but there are many things that I would never describe as beautiful, and the so-called laws of nature are no different from anything else when it comes to "beauty". It's a matter of opinion. My opinion about what is beautiful is not scientific or objective and neither is yours. Ask a person who struggles with math if math is beautiful. It's also very likely that many people who are good at math wouldn't describe it as "beautiful", whether the math relates to the laws of nature, the cosmos, or anything else.
Oh, and going off on a "biological identity", "species", "Martian" sidetrack doesn't help your assertions.
And the bottom line is that alleged "beauty" in some things or everything doesn't prove anything about an alleged god.
You IDiots are showing more and more what's really behind your agenda. You long ago ran out ideas and arguments that you allege are scientific (but aren't), so you're resorting more and more to religious mumbo-jumbo in your desperation.
Ya know, if you guys would just keep your wacky beliefs to yourselves and quit trying to take over the world and cram your fairy tales into science and every aspect of everyone's life, you just might not get any shit from people who don't want anything to do with your bullshit beliefs and agenda.
