mkirsh

If this statement is fact(seeing is believing) and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder then those who define aesthetically/ethically must believe in what they see. God we cannot witness and then where does the belief in god start? ...from our concepts of aesthetics and ethics. So in essence when we debate over existance and diety knowing form the start that witness can never be born we are sharing what we behold with one another.
If we ask about innate morality, instinct, proof, let us begin backwards.
Assume that all we know ..i.e our senses, feelings, thoughts, mind and body were created with the thought to prove god exists, other than saying I know or believe so from added experience. My moving feet tell me of motion and places, my eyes tell me that there is light, my taste tells me one thing is different from another, my ears tell me there are sound made not my own, my thoughts tell me whether or not I am alone. Then in summation to prove god exists, in this argument, beings were created with motion, taste, sight, and sound, and an admission from any of those being that he has only belief and no proof, has a single hitch....if I was created to prove the existance of a diety then all my thoughts taste, senses and feelings,etc must say so as the reason for their existance-as a proof of a diety..and what else do we possess with which to draw question? If I were currently engaged in debate over this issue from this perspective I'd have to claim a runned race-fixed debate if it were the case god created man to prove his existence, the theoretical test question ( as I view nature/god as both the generator/calculator and product of its own design) is not kosher- is not only against the rules to run a race, it would be rude to demand in argument any being explain a good and honest endeavor, much less admit he was endowed himself with a need as to effort a test of his own existance.
In short all argument on this is basically circular(big to little and visa verse, as concentric circles are to one another) as we define it we, and in the process of such question we are no more than sharing our perceptions as an artist is in creating a picture, though some take their beliefs much more seriously(are still picture painters). My motivations in writing are to stress a different sense of priority in these endeavors; I hope a lighter sense much as an artist appreciates his audience and visa versa. The world then is only a recipriosity that has originated an additional component, from somewhere, of a redundant bluntness from which has evolved notions of redundant curiosity, self imposed punishment .. defined absolutes... a mechanical perspective and approach to the world around us in our interactions and judgements.
We are by definiton inflicting others, which is always self-inflicting. A viscious spiriling down cycle The more we self-inflict ourselves the less of our assets remain of what we started with, either created for the purpose of proof or not. Of this morality all men are composed, whether isolated life long, committed criminals, scientists, angels, doctors, lawyers, or philosophers, and with which we can "prove" the existance of god... is either our question (our existence)as the deliberate impliment of proof... or our question alone.... as all thing have a reciprical... however or in what order they originated, or, if the existence of god cannot be proven, at least that he(god) is not a blunt object to be beaten or with which to beat or club ourselves out of existance. Do you see the blunt club, or just believe it sees you.?

mkirsh

I did not intend this as an arguement for or against creation. My intention in writing was from morality question, human behavoir, -is he born with an innate morality at his first look and what are our questions of god and creation about-from where do they come.
Men are only picture painters and artists. Scientist come to conjecture and argument over thing appearing absolute/mathematical to others. They only study change. There is nothing more -a perfect circle exists only in the mind. It appears from my perspective that something blunt affects all of our moods. Though I have not visited many places on the earth- I do not think things are much different in this respect, though I image it could be a little better, but that a general mood from a chronic (old)threat (or perceived threat) invades ourselves and history. What would be a concern but moral and philosophical issues in the presence of a slowly growing tilt in our social environment.
And if this is the case it might be important that as many as posible come to know so before the pentagons of the world walk over our highest principles without knowing.

Sooperhotshiz

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!�?

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!�?

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,�? quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!�?

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,�? quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!�?

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!�?

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,�? quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!�?

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-a poem by John Godfrey Saxe based on an Indian fable.

butswana

"Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing." That's what Judy the elf told Scott Calvin in the movie "The Santa Clause."

premjan

That is pretty insightful.

whichphilosophy

Seeing which also encompasses perceiving through our senses is also believing. Even if we misinterpret what we see, that is our business and not for an external person to evaluate.

whichphilosophy

This definitely looks like an elephant designed by a committee

jonesg

Depends whether you are talking about physical or spiritual.

In science we must see (sometimes merely with math/physics) before putting lives at risk, designing aircraft is an example.

In spiritual terms, if a person does not believe first, they will not let themselves see .

Unless a man wants to believe, he will not let himself, even when proof is there it will be intellectualized away.

The question is, can you want what you want.?