Lucifer is not an actual being he takes forms in other beings. Basically I tried to join a cult by the name of the army of satan. You have to do 3 things that bring you closer to the devil. Everytime you do one thing your eye color changes until you do the last thing and thats the worst one then your eyes turn completely gold. You can not step foot into a church and you cant repent for five years. You also have to walk around like nothings bothering you once that happens. Like I saw some fucked up shit. Like things get fucked up when you cant die. Just gona put it that way.
I tend to see it as everything is "God" putting on a show for itself. At least that's about the limit of my ability to conceptualize it all. ------
This is such a complex world every little thing has a purpose. There is no way all that was made by a stupid "bang." Just look at the human body. I cannot even begin to describe how amazing it is. There is obviously some divine being who created this world.
Seriously? The human eye is one of the main things that perplexes me most, probably our most incredible body part.
Yes I am aware of evolution, but I still find it stupendously amazing and mind blowing how it came about even through the process of evolution.
IF the eye was designed by some "divine being", why do I (and many others) need corrective lenses in order to see "clearly"?
Because we all have challenges and obstacles in life to learn from different to each others. If you want me to explain a divine beings logic and workings well I have not the capability to do so nor would I naively assume this creator is pure goodness. However he did at least create people to fix your eye problems
Horse shit. Why would an omniscient being create anything that was "flawed" in the first place, and then go on to create the "fix"? Sounds counter productive, don't you think? Piss poor "design" if you ask me... Try again.
That was sort of said tongue in cheek hence why I did the face. However to entertain the thought: So you appreciate eye sight better now? Because you need negativity for positivity to exist? To direct attention internally? I dunno there could be a plethora of reasons. Logic is something developed by beings in this universe to interact and make assessments of things in this universe. If there is a divine creator outside of our universe then there's a good chance our logic probably would not apply there so to attempt to make any logical investigations in to a divine creators creation seems like a flawed task for me from my perspective.
The human eye is the the best all around eye of all animals. We might not have the depth of vision, the color spectrum sight, or dark vision of some animals - but those are generally the only quality those animal eyes have. The human eye has the best overall aspects of all those. We have great color detail, depth of vision, and fair dark vision - though our dark vision is probably the worst of most animals. I'd say where we really lack is in our sense of smell and hearing. As far as the creator - it's not an answerable question by any means. Nothing can be created nor destroyed in this reality - as such the idea of creation exists outside of our possible understanding. So the idea of a "creator" while understandable as a base concept isn't understandable as a tangible process or being. One question to contemplate is which came first, color or sight? Colors are reflections of light off objects - how did the eye form as a response to wave information? Here is another way to think about it. This is an analogy I use with philosophy students: The Case of the Arctic Fox The Arctic fox has black skin and a white coat. The method of reflection for black is in it's ability to absorb all visible spectrum light - as such black is a non-reflection, whereas white reflects all light and absorbs none. In order to create the pigment for black skin the Arctic Fox's brain/DNA, would have to know how to initiate a pigment which absorbs all light. It would have to know what chemical structure would create the correct absorption properties at an atomic level to absorb all wavelengths of light. However, and here is the kicker - the Arctic Fox only sees dichromatically. Meaning it isn't capable of seeing the color Red. Yet, the pigment it's skin creates is able to absorb red - meaning at a level beyond the capabilities of the eyes, the biology of the Arctic Fox is able to create a pigment which understands that Red exists.
Howdy, Informant! So you're a professor? "Creator" and human eye design aside, I fail to see how your philosophical analogy applies here. Does not the Arctic Fox's fur color change seasonally? Brown in the summer, and white in the winter? Why is black skin pigmentation and its ability to absorb all visible light spectrums even a consideration when it's covered with fur? And more appropriately, what does a fox's skin pigmentation have to do with how it processes light information through the eye? How would any of this correlate to a dark skinned human being with poor eyesight? Which came first? The chicken, or the egg...
the cephalopod eye is better than ours, the octopus for example... we have a blind spot in our eye that they do not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye here you can take a blind spot test, remember that when you're looking at the screen, the eye in front of the L is your right eye, so make sure you look at the letters with the correct eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vision%29
"Corrective lenses" were designed out of the mind of humans, and "corrective lenses" can also be flawed, as humans do not produce in a carbon copy-like perfect fashion. And as I look around reality I do not see carbon copy like perfect fashion within it. So if we were created in the image of the creator, it looks like a fit to me. ------
Hey Waktoo! No, I'm not a professor - I'm just a know-it-all- ass. But, I find the best way I learn is to be proven wrong, and in public realms like this, the added embarrassment of being wrong solidifies the learning experience lol. I came up with this analogy as a response to a paper written by a Professor named[SIZE=11pt] Graziano[/SIZE] of Princeton who belongs to a branch of thought known as Eliminative Materialism which I find to be utterly bunk. I later used it to help tutor my philosophy class because everyone seemed to be failing. So, the idea here is to focus on what light is. White light, as projected by the sun, is a combination of all wavelengths each of which resonates at a different frequency. These frequencies are either absorbed, reflected or refracted when hitting an object. Black objects absorb all frequencies of light through matching the resonate frequency of the wavelengths. Where as white object do not match frequency and as such the spectrum of wavelengths are reflected making the object white. So, with this in mind it need be understood that pigment is created biologically. Pigment defines the "color" or lack thereof, a creature will take on. At a biological level, the Arctic Fox had to have known what chemical structure of pigment to make in order to appear black. Which means it had to have been able to make a pigment which matches the resonate frequency of a red wavelength. At the same time, the Arctic Fox has dichromatic sight, meaning it doesn't see the color Red. If our external sensors are the only collectors of information, how did the Arctic Fox's biological make up know how to respond to a frequency that it's external sensors are incapable of identifying? Black, is a necessary pigment for all arctic environment animals - like the Polar Bear too - because the absorption of all visible spectrum light allows for greater heat retention. The white fur of the fox also allows for camouflage in the environment but at the same time light passes through much of the fur to be absorbed by the black skin for heat retention purposes. Changing seasons and thus changing fur means that light is absorbed by the fur of the arctic fox - the radiant heat of which is cooled by airflow through the fur - meaning the fox doesn't overheat in the summer months. This means, the arctic fox adapted itself - without the capability to fundamentally interpret a red wavelength - for the purpose of survival based on external perceptions of its environment, by creating a biological pigment which absorbs red wavelengths. Thus, in terms of creation (and to an even more precise point evolution) how did the Arctic Fox pull this off? To me, the answer lies in the fact that creation is most likely not a method or process of forming creatures or events, but rather a holistic response to Universal wave information that we as living beings are capable of interpreting on a level outside that which we use to interpret physical reality. The possibility of this implies that creation isn't an event as we often think of it semantically, but rather what we think of as creation is an evolutionary process on a scale which encompasses all reality. We are wave information interpreting wave information - biological life accessing universal knowledge beyond our physical interpretations - to survive. This kinda answers Plato's assumption of innate knowledge. In which he proves his theory to Meno through showing how an uneducated slave child can innately understand geometry. Geometry is a constant of reality and would be a part of our "hidden" knowledge of wave information. This is a theory of my own design so feel free to destroy it as if left to my own devises my ego will cause me to explode.