Capt. Mooron wrote:

No, I make a piece of art. The idea that creation of art is an
argument for the existence of god assumes that god has something to
do with the creation of art in the first place - it doesn't argue
for his existence, it presupposes it. I'm sorry, but I just don't
think like that. I prefer to understand it in terms of what's
*given* - I engage in the creative process, and something 'artistic'
results.

Wally... you are being defensive...

How am I?


I did not say that any of your
creative processes were god like......

I didn't say you did. I said that your argument is flawed because it
presupposes something whose existence it supposedly substantiates - it begs
the question.


only that the fact you can
create anything lends credence to a guiding force.

I disagree. I'm pragmatic about creating art. It happens. I don't feel a
need to invent something to explain how it happens - because I don't feel a
need to explain how it happens. Call it a talent, something I have a knack
for. I do it because I enjoy the doing of it and because I like what I
create.


With respect, you have no idea what I've experienced other than what
I've divulged here (and elsewhere online).

Wally...... you have divulged far more than you expected simply by
posting here....

Such as?


I think the world/universe is a
wonderful, fabulous thing, but I prefer to not postulate an entity
or force that is 'guiding' or 'spiritual to account for it, or my
experience of it. Too worldly.

Yes.... it's a scary place isn't it! ;-) ...

Not really.


As an artist.... don't you feel compelled to explore the
boundaries???...... and do you allow your current viewpoint to
tarnish or subduct that ability to engage in that exploration?

What boundaries?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
...
....
I didn't say you did. I said that your argument is flawed because it
presupposes something whose existence it supposedly substantiates - it begs
the question.

I like to see someone use that expression in its original meaning.



only that the fact you can
create anything lends credence to a guiding force.

I disagree. I'm pragmatic about creating art. It happens. I don't feel a
need to invent something to explain how it happens - because I don't feel a
need to explain how it happens. Call it a talent, something I have a knack
for. I do it because I enjoy the doing of it and because I like what I
create.


Actually, I think the real "gift" is the ability to appreciate beauty. Given
that as a basic human trait, it only follows that some would be better then
others at creating it. However, that still falls far short as a scientific
proof.

Jeff Morris wrote:

... it begs the question.

I like to see someone use that expression in its original meaning.

I wasn't aware that there was another.


I disagree. I'm pragmatic about creating art. It happens. I don't
feel a need to invent something to explain how it happens - because
I don't feel a need to explain how it happens. Call it a talent,
something I have a knack for. I do it because I enjoy the doing of
it and because I like what I create.

Actually, I think the real "gift" is the ability to appreciate
beauty.

Almost everyone can appreciate beauty of one form or another. Maybe the
artist's gift is the ability to imagine it and express it.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk