[Star Traveler]

The point there is that what is “constructed” is a human construction and not a so-called “natural picture”.

The best I could say is that someone (or several) who helped “make up the picture” — has a sense of beauty that we all appreciate — just like we appreciate a painter who paints a beautiful picture.

You might attribute the ability to create “beauty” (in that picture) to what God put in that person (in their abilities to do that) — but I wouldn’t necessarily attribute the beauty of what we see in those pictures presented as being something that God has made, directly (other than God made certain elements radiate at certain frequencies, if you want to put it that way).

People are really “ooohing and aaaahing” over some artist, more than anything else — which is fine, too — as long as you recognize that you’re praising an artist and not God.

[newguy357]

People are really “ooohing and aaaahing” over some artist, more than anything else — which is fine, too — as long as you recognize that you’re praising an artist and not God.

When I learned (in 7th grade?) how small the optical portion of the em spectrum is, I was disappointed that many of these astronomy pictures were of objects that aren't visible to the eye. But it didn't take long (which it shouldn't for you, if you actually think) before I realized that all of the structure is there. The fact that we can't see it is meaningless. These pictures are of entirely real objects. The fact that they are colorized so that we can have some understanding of what they are merely serves to make the universe more awe-inspiring, not less. I'm not sure what your deal is, unless you're one of the perpetually unhappy.