Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:06 pm

If you think you have a valid reason for postulating the existence of a supernatural entity that supposedly created the world in which we live please post those reasons here for discussion and possible rebuttal.

Thank you.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:34 pm

[Replying to post 160 by mgb]

Can I get your opinion on this picture, please? It was done by a 3D artist friend of mine. Does it count as being a creative piece of art? What emotions do you see in it? The guy has great talent, I hope you'll agree.

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:56 pm

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 160 by mgb]

Can I get your opinion on this picture, please? It was done by a 3D artist friend of mine. Does it count as being a creative piece of art? What emotions do you see in it? The guy has great talent, I hope you'll agree.

I'm not a fan of digital art. I do oil painting and I prefer that. I like the colour in the image but the background is very fragmented and lacks harmony. But I'd have to see more of his work to make a fair judgement.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:10 pm

[Replying to post 162 by mgb]

Oh God. You fell for it. Here's my 'friend'.

https://www.popsci.com/these-are-what-g ... reams-look

If you can't tell the difference between a picture done by a human, and one done by a computer AI...what then about your claim " For me it is insight and a direct awareness of reality. Artistic creativity is about awareness and emotion. Computers are about artificial intellect. These are very different levels of being."

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:51 am

[Replying to post 163 by rikuoamero]

I have tried the same trick with music myself, I highly recommend Emily Howell.

mgb wrote: I don't think so. Even if a computer could be programmed to experience emotion it would only show that there is more than one way to make a human being. They might still be based on different fundamental principles.

Then I would say you have rendered your belief beyond falsification.

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 am

rikuoamero wrote:Oh God. You fell for it. Here's my 'friend'.

LOL. What are you talking about? I knew straight away it was digital art. I had nothing good to say about the painting. Normally when I criticize art I don't like to be too severe lest I offend someone. My first impression of this painting was that it looked like schizophrenic art. Aesthetically it is dismal. It's digital. How am I supposed to know if someone pressed a few buttons on a computer or not because that's the only difference between some digital art by humans and purely computer art. As a matter of fact, it was not entirely generated by a computer because the image of the pagoda* was fed into it. LOL. It is such a mess it could have been a monkey, a human (drunk), or a computer generated image. It is just random garbage to me.

* or what looks vaguely like a pagoda

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:15 am

mgb wrote: LOL. What are you talking about? I knew straight away it was digital art.

But that doesn't mean you knew it was AI generated.

How am I supposed to know if someone pressed a few buttons on a computer or not because that's the only difference between some digital art by humans and purely computer art.

That's the point, isn't it? You can't tell the difference between human artistic creation and AI generated image.

As a matter of fact, it was not entirely generated by a computer because the image of the pagoda* was fed into it.

What difference would it make if the computer picked a seed randomly, without being fed a pagoda? While we are here, would it make a difference if a machine use physical paint and physical paint brushes on a physical canvas?

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:39 pm

Bust Nak wrote:But that doesn't mean you knew it was AI generated.

Sigh. Even if a human had a hand in it, it is still largely generated by the computer. It is a garbage image with no artistic value. It is almost impossible to tell the difference between garbage created by a computer and garbage created by a computer with the help of a human being. It is still garbage. The repeat patterns in the background are very like the clone function in photoshop. How can one tell if the pattern was automatically generated or done with the clone tool? This discussion is not about the difference between computer garbage and computer garbage helped by a human with a mouse. If you think it is you should think again.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:04 pm

[Replying to post 168 by mgb]

You do accept that aesthetic is subjective, right? One man's garbage is another man's centre piece. An AI painting have recently been sold for $432k, granted I can only assume much of that value is due to its cultual significance rather than it being pleasing to the eye.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:13 pm

[Replying to post 165 by mgb]

LOL. What are you talking about? I knew straight away it was digital art.

Of course you did. I told you it was done by a 3D artist friend of mine. Unless when you say the phrase 'digital art', you mean art done solely by a computer, with little to no human input?

I had nothing good to say about the painting. Normally when I criticize art I don't like to be too severe lest I offend someone.

And that's the ticket. Your initial critique, after seeing this picture, was one based on an assumption a human had done it. Apparently, you didn't consider the possibility a computer had done it.

My first impression of this painting was that it looked like schizophrenic art.

Just like many human art projects.

How am I supposed to know if someone pressed a few buttons on a computer or not because that's the only difference between some digital art by humans and purely computer art.

I actually DO have a friend in real life who is a 3D digital artist. He's a character modeller, working in the movie industry. Growing up together, I watched him, often for hours on end, as he practised his then future trade. There's a LOT more involved in the process than just pressing a few buttons.

It is such a mess it could have been a monkey, a human (drunk), or a computer generated image. It is just random garbage to me.

You didn't know though. You apparently could not tell the difference between a picture done by a human and one done by a computer. Which removes any leg your previous claim has to stand on, the one about creativity being something a compute can't do. If a picture you can't tell is not done by a human, no matter how creative or uncreative you may deem it (which would be a subjective opinion), how can you claim then that computers can't do creative art?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:19 pm

[Replying to post 167 by mgb]

It is a garbage image with no artistic value.

This value is subjective. There is no such thing as an objective artistic value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)
That painting has been in art galleries.

If you think it is you should think again.

It's not. It's about what I and Bust Nak think is the erroneous position you hold that computers don't or cannot do creative art. I haven't read the full discussion between you two, but my own position is that one needs an objective definition for creative art, creativity. One needs to be able to tell the difference between what a human does, and what a computer does, before asserting that only humans have creativity and computers don't. If one cannot tell the difference, then either computers are/can be creative too, or humans don't deserve the label either.