Theology Question

Quincunx said:
Actually my point was that art is subjective. I don't happen to like Picasso. That's the entire point. The other poster asked if science could determine how Picasso was great. I don't think it can because that isn't really a meaningful designation. Picasso is great only insofar as he is well known. Not all like him.

Purely subjective experience based on personal taste is not necessarily an indicator of the supernatural.
Click to expand...

You have trouble understanding the issue.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think Picasso was trying to paint pretty pictures.

But there is something powerful and primal in his art that catches your eye.

If you hung 50 paintings in a gallery, 10 by Picasso, and 40 by students from the local art school, odds are that most people will be visually drawn to Picasso's art even if they don't know who he is, even if they don't think it meets conventional standards for pretty pictures.
Click to expand...

Not an art expert, but I think Picasso painted whatever suited him. :)

Again, not an art expert, but I’d be interested to see such a test using Picasso himself and those painting in a similar style…IOW, not crayon or pen-and-ink. Finger-painting is okay. :)
 
Quincunx said:
Actually my point was that art is subjective. I don't happen to like Picasso. That's the entire point. The other poster asked if science could determine how Picasso was great. I don't think it can because that isn't really a meaningful designation. Picasso is great only insofar as he is well known. Not all like him.
Click to expand...

Picasso was well known because he broke the rules, and his art had a certain kind of power and truth that amateurs and substandard artists cannot even to hope achieve.

He wasn't trying to paint pretty pictures anymore than Shastokovitch was trying to compose pretty music.
 
Quincunx said:
Just ask a Christian for "evidence" for God. They always have plenty they feel is sufficient for them. In fact doubt there are many Christians who say "I am a Christian and Love God with all my heart and soul and I feel absolutely no connection or any sense of reality of God."

OF COURSE you can test the God Hypothesis. If I thought there were millions of people who believed wholeheartedly in something they have no reason for belief in I would worry.



Why? It was a legitimate question in the 19th century. And many similar studies were done in the 20th as well. It is literally IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.
Click to expand...


There is no way to test it. And you should not be testing "There is no God"...you should be testing, "There is not at least one god." (Which also cannot reasonably be tested.)


I understand you are not familiar with how null hypotheses work. Take the example of the slope of a line I gave earlier.



Oh give it a rest.



So that's how you approach EVERYTHING in life? You see a door and it MIGHT have a vicious tiger behind it. It might. YOU DON'T KNOW because you can't see through the door.

Do you find yourself stuck in the bathroom at work often because of this possibility?

NO! You don't believe there is a tiger behind a door you can't see through. You just DON'T. So you easily go out of the bathroom. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TIGER even though you don't actually "know" if the Tiger is there.
Click to expand...

I do not do "believing"...which is the reason I do not "believe" in the tiger.

I do not even think about a tiger being there...and you are being a jerk for using something as simplistic as that for an example.



Why don't you admit you don't really know what I'm talking about with regards to testing the null hypothesis?
Click to expand...

First of all, I would not "admit" it...I would acknowledge it. I am adult enough and confident enough to acknowledge when I am wrong...IF I AM WRONG.

On this, I am not wrong. Grow up, Boy.

And I understand the null hypothesis.

I am essentially using it in one of my assertions here.

But there is no way, on a question like "are there gods" or "is there any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol"...that the null hypothesis is a better candidate for the go-to default "I DO NOT KNOW."

Any logician would tell you so. But I doubt you have the balls to put it to a logician.

And any logician would also tell you that the "logic" you used earlier is about as logical as a peanut butter sandwich.

Anyway, as I said, you are not mature enough to acknowledge being wrong. And quite honestly, I am getting a lot of enjoyment out of letting you know that I know you are not. So I hope you keep it up.

Okay, boy? (Or should it be "little girl?"
 
Cypress said:
I don't think Picasso was trying to paint pretty pictures.

But there is something powerful and primal in his art that catches your eye.

If you hung 50 paintings in a gallery, 10 by Picasso, and 40 by students from the local art school, odds are that most people will be visually drawn to Picasso's art even if they don't know who he is, even if they don't think it meets conventional standards for pretty pictures.
Click to expand...

Picasso once said, "My mother said to me, 'If you are a soldier, you will become a general. If you are a monk, you will become the Pope.' Instead, I was a painter, and became Picasso."

Great painter. Not as great as Van Gogh, but a great painter.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Jesus H. Christ. Can you get any more pompous?

Anyway, I agree. Picasso wasn't a good painter...he was a GREAT painter.
Click to expand...

We have several dozen art galleries here of the works of local artists. For the most part the paintings, while pretty, are actually mundane, boring, conventional, something you won't remember ten minutes after seeing it.

Great art has some kind of power and truth in it we intuitively recognize. That's what makes paintings by Picasso and Van Gogh so arresting. We remember them, and they make an impression on us
 
Frank Apisa said:
Jesus H. Christ. Can you get any more pompous?

Anyway, I agree. Picasso wasn't a good painter...he was a GREAT painter.
Click to expand...

Perry has a PhD. It makes him an expert on everything. :thup:

As for Picasso, I’m ambivalent. I like people who do what moves them. Picasso was one. Salvador Dali another. Stanley Kubrick a third.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no way to test it.
Click to expand...

Ex cathedra proclamation. You are, of course, wrong, but I understand you don't want to be.

As I said ask any Christian and they will tell you why they believe in God. That's what I'm talking about. What "evidence", just ANYTHING that makes God an obvious reality?

And you should not be testing "There is no God"...you should be testing, "There is not at least one god." (Which also cannot reasonably be tested.)
Click to expand...

That isn't at all how inference works in the sciences. Just google "Null Hypothesis". You'll see I am right.

And I understand the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

CLEARLY NOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top