Posted by James on 9/25/2007, 6:30 am, in reply to "Re: Scientifically discovered God" If that is the case, the author made a very poor showing of it. Or at least the translator mangled it enough to ruin whatever merit it had. "Among these observations are life from nonlife, sentience from nonsentience, and an overarching orderliness of all observed phenomena. The observed universe is one of perceptions, not the dry formulae of science. Colors as we perceive them are not the formulaic wavelength and amplitude of optics, for example. Bridging the gap from photons to "red," for example, suggests a fundamental property of reality that science cannot deal with, unless it somehow tries to find a way to incorporate the reality of perception." I believe what you are referring to here is what I call interpretation. Color is indeed a of wavelength and amplitude. But the definition of any given color is dependent upon human interpretation of particular ranges of wavelength and amplitude to mean a certain color. In other words, color perception is a combination of the physical properties of light and reflection and the human interpretation of those physical properties to create and apply meaning. There is absolutely no rational reason to apply to the supernatural for explanation of this.
199.80.67.240
"However, the gist that I got of it was that the author was using the premisses of atheism, and concluding that those premisses, honestly analyzed, point toward, at the least, some sort of generic creator."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread