Beauty Is One of the Best Arguments for God (Here's Why!)

[@waynezimmer1288]

Of course we can see beauty in the natural world as we are in the image of the creator. Even we try to create beauty in our creations like art, gardens, and buildings. Glory to the ultimate holy artist! Thanks for what you do.

[@nikor6249]

Nice one! I haven't thought of this as much as I maybe should have been. marvelous! Praise God! Praise Jesus!

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@Wertbag99]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN I thought the shroud had been debunked?

[@vapoureyes]

There is no such thing as a bad day, if you admire the fluctuations and changes in wind , temperature, rain and cloud formation it is aw inspiring just stop listen and look and you will be in heaven on earth .

[@kenegerton7512]

True beauty is based on something our innermost being needs. From space we see Earth and marvel at its beauty. Would we think it was beautiful if air and water were toxic to us? Ofcourse not. The Earth possesses everything we need and crave for our survival. Such is the saving knowledge of Christ when we realize that The full embodiment of God possesses everything our being needs and craves. That's "beauty".

[@dahliaherrod4301]

That's an interesting way to look at beauty. I'll have to put it to the test to see if it holds, but for now I will use your comment as a working definition.

[@rickkuhn6577]

Linking this to the moral argument is best like in abolition of man

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video..

[@Wertbag99]

I would think the first step would be to offer a definition of beauty. It can be visual, it can be audio, it can be taste or it can be multiple senses working in parallel. The most common definition seems to be something pleasing to the senses. Objective facts don't need an observer, they are true regardless, but beauty by definition is the senses of the person experiencing that moment leading to them deciding it is a positive experience. Beauty is an experience, not an attribute. It is subjective by this very definition.

[@brentahre9693]

Beauty is objective. Our perception of it is subjective and on a spectrum.

[@Wertbag99]

@@brentahre9693 You can't just assert "beauty is objective" without stating why anyone should believe that is the case. I've stated why it isn't and you haven't refuted that. I can understand that you disagree, but unless you clarify why, then there isn't much to work with here. I can point to the dictionary definition of beauty "a combination of qualities, that pleases the aesthetic senses" which matches common usage and is clearly a subjective term. Unless you define beauty differently to common usage?

[@brentahre9693]

@@Wertbag99 I don’t think a definition of beauty is as helpful as asking “where beauty is.” It’s a binary choice, between the observer and the observed. Which one possesses the quality of beauty? It’s certainly not the observer, it’s the observed object!

[@Wertbag99]

@@brentahre9693 It is in the mind of the observer, as the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". There is no measurable thing that is beauty, no way to objectively judge the quantity of beauty an object holds and as many opinions on what is beautiful as there are people in the world. Beauty is an individual's opinion of the aesthetic quality of an object, not something that is intrinsic to its nature. It's something which is pleasing to the senses, and it is therefore those senses which is applying the label.

[@brentahre9693]

@@Wertbag99 “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a subjective statement that says nothing objective about reality. It’s a meaningless tautology.

[@newhaven4455]

psalms 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. oh Jesus! how awesome are you Abba Father! you are the Everlasting Father as it is written in Isaiah 9:6

[@Angga-jf3km]

Agree 😊

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@radscorpion8]

This is basically just an appeal to emotion. Here's why. 2:40 "we would still agree there is such a thing as beauty, that flowers can possess that property". Nothing about that statement implies that beauty objectively exists. It could easily be the case that because humans are designed similarly (same genetic structure, same brains), they largely find pleasure from the same external stimuli, and one format of that pleasure is described as beauty. All of that makes sense within a relative framework. It is easily possible for all human beings to find the same things enjoyable, precisely because we are all human beings and largely share the same design. The elevation of this description of beauty to objective reality is based on a fallacy rooted in an appeal to emotion. Just because something "feels" true or "feels" as if its a real property that something or someone has (such as your wife), doesn't mean it really exists as an objective fact in the world. Just because we talk "as if" beauty exists in something, doesn't mean it really exists as an objective quality. This is the essence of the fallacy being committed; equating what appears to be with what really exists in the world, which is virtually impossible to know as I will return to later. 3:35 4:30 "we speak as if beauty is objective". This is really not true, and would be an argumentum ad populum even if it were. People are not speaking on a philosophical level about objective properties of the universe :P. They are just saying, X looks beautiful, and yes they have a tendency to assume it looks beautiful to everyone, and are often times surprised when its not (see modern art). I am 99% sure if you asked any random person whether that's what they meant when they say "I found that sunset beautiful" that they will tell you they have no idea what objective property means, or that they aren't a philosopher. The fact is the sentences people use in their everyday life can be parsed in a relative or objective framework. 4:30 "naturalism can't adequately explain beauty". If there is no such thing as objective beauty, which could easily be the case, then there is nothing to explain. It is simply a relative phenomenon that was either a deliberate or accidental offshoot of the evolutionary process. Whether or not that is a satisfying explanation to the general public (which I often hear theists argue), is once again besides the point and another appeal to emotion. Whether or not it is appealing has nothing to do with whether it is true. And please note here...to dismiss another fallacy. No one is claiming that they *know* that beauty is relative. For all we know there is an objective quality, defined by some external factor, even though I find objective anything to be highly dubious. But the claim that it is objective simply doesn't logically follow, and the idea that relative beauty exists is more likely, so we treat it as being true for the time being, just like we assume memory is valid even though its possible that it isn't. Actually in general, it is really bizarre for anyone to claim that anything "objectively exists" in the world. All we know is the information that appears before us through our senses. We have no way of knowing whether those senses accurately describe the real world or not. We act as if they do, because of Occam's Razor and the need to use some fundamental axioms as a practical stepping stone to guide the rest of our scientific inquiry. But it is always necessarily a logical fallacy to claim that anything you see, feel, or think must somehow be representative of an "objective truth"

[@daman7387]

This definitely feels like it's meant to be shown at a youth group

[@mechaphoenix6022]

True words. Thank you.

[@claudiaa.3268]

Good, good points!

[@johannaquinones7473]

God bless you and continue to guide you

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@grantbartley483]

Kant says there are objective truths about subjective experiences of beauty, such as that certain things or circumstances are likely to provoke an experience of beauty. I think that's about as objective as beauty gets.

[@mike_AD]

Thank you for posting this. i cannot believe i was just thinking of this exact topic a few days ago, then you post this. Youre a brilliant brother thanks for what you do

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@mike_AD]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN nice

[@rationalsceptic7634]

@@mike_AD kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGSshoOqZrR0m8k

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@mike_AD use this argument and see how atheist mind go crazy this ardument is much more simple that this argument from beauty

[@mike_AD]

@@rationalsceptic7634 ive tried to respond to you 5 times, and youtube keeps blocking my comment lol. To keep it short: i watched the video from RR, its lame. Thanks

[@krishnapartha]

Keep up the good work. You are beautiful. 🙏🏾

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@hannahkroon5233]

Eish struggle with this one. We live in a culture where good is called evil and evil is called good. I do not think beauty is as objective as you'd like it to be. We would generally agree that love is beautiful (yes/no). But we now have a world shouting "love is love" irrespective whether it follows God's design. Is the love between a same-sex couple beautiful? Does that reflect God's beauty? Does that really point to God?

[@billbrock8547]

The suggestion, obviously false on its face, that there is a universal property of beauty would be a hopelessly weak argument for God, even if it were true.

[@goldenalt3166]

When I say my wife is beautiful, I mean she's beautiful to me. Proclaiming that any talk of beauty must mean that beauty is objective and requires an objective standard to compare it to is unjustified. Scientific facts have an overwhelming degree of agreement. Show me any standard of beauty that is close to the agreement we get from weighing something.

[@Thomasrice07]

no

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Thomasrice07 No? You have no example or you think beauty is objective?

[@gfujigo]

Excellent point. Widespread agreement however just means widespread agreement. It doesn’t automatically mean that something is true. There was widespread and unanimous agreement that adults do not grow new brain cells. Now we know that is false and that adults do grow new brain cells throughout life. So scientific widespread agreement is not infallible. It seems to me that he is saying when we talk of beauty, no matter how we see it, we are talking of an attribute called beauty. We can talk about different colors of light but we are still talking about light. How is the claim in this video unjustified?

[@goldenalt3166]

@@gfujigo Both beauty is objective and objective beauty means God are unsupported.

[@dI9ESTIVES123]

Golden Alt Beauty is very much objective, it’s taste that is subjective. Inherently, humans have devolved a somewhat objective standard do what could be considered beautiful through evolution (this standard can sometimes waver but for the most part is applicable to almost everyone).

[@kaeso101]

Love it love it. Noice!!👍👍👍

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@rationalsceptic7634]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGSshoOqZrR0m8k

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@rationalsceptic7634 watch this kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmquhoqao72tntE

[@joelbachmann10]

The Argument From Beauty (Look At How Beautiful/Complex Things Are, Only A Creator Can Create Something This Beautiful/Complex, Thus God Exist) Basically it goes like this: Why am I complex? Well, that’s because I kind of am… unlike most theological arguments, Arguments from Beauty are very rarely presented syllogistically. Rather, they’re asserted through a question that reeks of ignorance, such as, “How can you look at a tree’s beauty and not see deliberate design?” or, “How can you look into your baby’s perfect eyes and not see the hand of god?” Simply put together: • Beauty can only be created by a very specific god; • Beauty exists; • Therefore, a very specific god exists. Rebuttal: 1 - 3. Argument from Ignorance or Argument from Personal Incredulity: To go straight for the jugular, Arguments from Beauty are, at their core, either Arguments from Ignorance or Arguments from Personal Incredulity. Beneath their appeal to emotion (which is a fallacy in and of itself), they’re asserting that because we can’t explain why beauty exists, their very specific god must’ve intended for it to exist; which is just as absurd as asserting that, because we can’t explain why war exists, Ares, the god of war, must’ve intended for it to exist... 4. Ignores Inconvenient Facts: A fourth flaw to raise, and one that is outrageously obvious, is that Arguments from Beauty entirely Ignore Inconvenient Facts. That is, they ignore the fact that world isn’t all sunshine and rainbows; but rather, it is, in the words of Rocky Balboa, “A very mean and nasty place”. Whether we like it or not, the fact of the matter is that in the state of nature, life is solitary, poor, brutish and short; it’s an ugly place, and one that only a sick and twisted maniac would deliberate create.

[@plantingasbulldog2009]

Joel Bachmann Nice job quoting a bunk argument from a ridiculous video where the content creator openly admits to a strawman. Here's my syllogism. Take it apart if you think it's bad, but it's an actual legit argument from beauty rather than some poor misrepresentation and avoids all of the mistakes that Woodford's video asserts. P1: Objective beauty exists (if you want to dispute this I can also run this argument from a point of view of subjective beauty, or if you're willing, I'm willing to present a defense of objective beauty as well, just let me know). P2: Beauty is extremely difficult to create, and almost never (if ever) occurs by chance or randomness. P3: The world is filled with objective beauty. P4: If naturalism is true, and everything is produced by an indifferent, impersonal universe, then the existence of objective beauty is probablistically low, and extremely difficult to explain. P5: If theism is true and the cosmos was produced by an intelligent, creative designer, then the proliferate existence of objective beauty that we find is far less surprising, and has a robust explanation. C: Therefore, on theism, the existence of objective beauty is probablistically far more likely than on naturalism. Notably, it isn't explicit in this syllogism why it involved problem 4, so I'll explain: My argument is only seeking to explain why objective beauty exists. It doesn't deny or avoid the fact that there are problems in the world, but so long as (as I would argue), the existence of objective beauty is proliferate, this isn't a problem. If the world was largely filled with things which were objectively foul, then this might be a problem for my syllogism, but the fact that the world is genuinely filled with objective beauty is a powerful argument towards the truth of theism and against that of naturalism.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@plantingasbulldog2009]

umakemesmileswackin I wouldn't hang all argumentation on it, but I agree, the Shroud does provide at least some interesting evidence.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@plantingasbulldog2009 but do you agree that it is one piece of evidence that no atheist can refute just look at their answers

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@plantingasbulldog2009 the shrous destroys all the assumptions of the atheist

[@cosmic4037]

I better not look in the mirror. I must express another Godly attribute.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@cosmic4037]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN Nah!...best proof for GOD is when we die.

[@cosmic4037]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN I took a photo of a replica and got two faces on the chest.

[@cleo-lazy]

I’m a theist but Sean, I’m sorry. This is a lousy argument. I feel like it relies so heavily on whether or not “beauty” is objective and just because you said “most people believe in objective beauty” (and perhaps have studies to back that up), it doesn’t mean that beauty is objective. It only means that people _think_ that what they find beautiful is objectively beautiful; and of course they would! The most probable reason people believe that what they perceive as beautiful is objectively beautiful is because a large portion of people live in a world where they think their opinions and beliefs are universally true. I.e. An atheist would think that atheism is universally true and have troubles understanding why anyone would be a theist “in light of the evidence”. In the same way, you believe that Christianity is universally true (and I do too), but we are both extrapolating our subjective experience to an objective reality which we have frankly never experienced from an objective standpoint. While the truth and falsehood of other, more general, types of claims can be verified by logic or empirical evidence, beauty asks someone to make a judgement on whether or not something is beautiful. But Sean, _how_ could one possibly know that things such as beauty, which require an observer to interpret what is being called beautiful, are *objectively* beautiful? One can’t even prove that the colour I call ‘red’ is identical to the colour _you_ call ‘red’. All red objects in your world might look to you like what I call white but in my eyes, see as ‘red’. Someone could find a girl beautiful, someone else could say she’s not all that. Who’s to say that one is objectively correct and the other is objectively incorrect? Someone could experience God and know it’s God. Another person could have an identical experience and say it was a lapse in emotional stability - not even experiences of God Himself are objectively defensible because we are, by nature, subjective beings. It just seems that objective beauty is the crux of the argument from beauty, yet simultaneously, it is nowhere to be found. Can someone point me to something that is beautiful regardless of my opinion of it? And how would _that person_ be in an position to know that what they say is objective if, like me and all of mankind, they are trapped in an impermeable cell of subjectivity? One could say, “I don’t find the universe beautiful. I think it’s average.” I think the universe is pretty cool but I’m not… really in awe when I see stars, flowers or mountains. I’m more into paintings that depict people or places I’ve seen. Part of what makes these things awesome to me is not their content, but that the art was produced by a human yet it often looks so similar to what I would experience in reality (which was not produced by a human). Thus, if beauty is not objective - and I don’t think there’s any way for any person to prove that what they perceive as beauty is _objectively_ beautiful - then we’d all have to accept that the argument from beauty would not really apply to a person who isn’t very amazed by the “beauty all around us”. To say the truth, while some things may seem beautiful and orderly, a lot of things in the universe also seem… random - especially on the quantum level. So if it’s possible that this mixture of randomness and beautiful order was conjured by random forces then doesn’t God - in this specific case - become reduced to nothing but an explanatory hypothesis for humans finding the beauty in things? And calling it one of the “best arguments” for God… Sean, please. I doubt any logical atheists are going to be convinced by this. I _already_ believe in God and the only thing I seem to be convinced of is that this argument is not compelling. Moreover, to assert that there is objective beauty would be to imply that some things currently in existence are objectively “ugly” (otherwise, if _everything_ currently existing is objectively beautiful then the argument from (objective) beauty becomes even harder to defend: firstly, if everything was objectively beautiful then ‘beauty’ in itself may lose meaning without its polar reference frame in the same way that moral actions lose meaning (and become amoral) in the absence of an immoral reference frame for our actions. Power loses meaning without weakness. Rich loses meaning (and therein becomes ‘common’) without poor. Secondly, wouldn’t an objective ugliness mean that some things and some *people* are objectively “ugly”? Or would this objective ugliness magically decide to apply to everything *but* human beings? 🙄 Thirdly, if you affirm that *everything* is objectively beautiful then how could you possibly know that that is the case if you don’t even find everything objectively beautiful?). I don’t think the argument from beauty is salvageable for as long as it asserts this, “[Object A] is beautiful.” I say, “[Object A] is not beautiful.” You can say you’re objectively right-I can also say I’m objectively right. We’re all humans. We all experience reality subjectively. Who gets to say who is right? Is it another man? Who gets to say that that man is right in his judgements? Who gets to say that whoever said that that man is right in his judgments, is right in his judgments?!! (It goes on and on). Sean, it is inescapable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[@muhammedshanushan3931]

Bro , majority of philosophers accept or lean to the view that Beauty is objective

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@ShadyOakMinistries]

1:20-1:44

[@Wertbag99]

Was going to post something similar but found you've nailed the debate with clarity, good job.

[@_wade_morgan]

You kinda pulled a Sam Harris (when arguing for objective morality in the moral landscape) when he goes “just because people disagree on facts in science doesn’t mean there aren’t objective facts” - like true .... but you still haven’t demonstrated how feelings of beauty and morality, even if universal, are “objective” unless u define “objective” differently, idk what you’re even talking about. Also how does “humans experiencing a pleasurable feeling called beauty” provide any evidence for a god?

[@ShadyOakMinistries]

Because he's not defining beauty as a pleasurable feeling. He's noting the existence of an external objective fact (beauty) we all acknowledge to varying degrees (lesser perception of beauty or an immature perspective on beauty won't make something less beautiful) and using that as a framework for a mind with intention that caused these things to exist in the first place. It's the same structure to the Moral and Fine Tuning Arguments.

[@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1]

@@ShadyOakMinistries Beauty is definitely objective. Haven't you seen Brad Pit. On the other hand, there is Sarah Jessica Parker.

[@TaylorWalston]

So an appeal to emotion is evidence now?

[@SeanMcDowell]

It’s not about emotion. I’d invite you to watch more carefully.

[@TaylorWalston]

@@SeanMcDowell well isn't beauty a subjective situation.. a matter of perspective in the eye of the beholder? I think to a walk I took this weekend... along a Greenway in my town. Most of the Greenway is over grown, lot of congested weeds, then I come around a corner and I see a particular section.. that from that spot.. was downright gorgeous. Now, walk ten feet ahead and I don't get that same view.. ten feet back the same. So when we say beauty, are we not talking about the subjective perspective of that moment, the thing we are looking at or thinking of? And if we ignore the ugly ten feet back, or ten feet ahead, how is this not an appeal to emotion?

[@CKD3332]

@@TaylorWalston Emotion is attached to beauty or individual perceived beauty, i am trying to make a video about this today. However, you contradicted yourself in the last paragraph.

[@TaylorWalston]

@@CKD3332 how so?

[@CKD3332]

@@TaylorWalston read the first paragraph and the last.

[@NomadOutOfAfrica]

What a childish argument.

[@gersonbatres5826]

Why do you think so

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD THE SHROUD OF TURIN

[@joelmascarenhas8105]

the shroud is one piece But burial cloths of Jesus were made out of strips of cloth and a separate napkin

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@joelmascarenhas8105 There is evidence that the strips were woven back into the shroud that its why when scientist toolk a sample of the cloth they got the side that was repaired

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@joelmascarenhas8105 the napkin was the mask of oviedo in spain regardless if it is authentic or not whar i was arguing is that scientist cannot replicate a simple cloth with an image proof of a supernatural phenomena

[@torreyintahoe]

There are no gods. Not the one you believe in, not the 3000 ones that other people believe in. Grow up.

[@hallboy5]

Got evidence for that?

[@torreyintahoe]

@@hallboy5 If I said that there was a unicorn living in my back yard would it be your responsibility to disprove it or mine to prove it?

[@hallboy5]

@@torreyintahoe You made an assertion- "there are no gods". You shoulder the burden of proof because you made that assertion. But it's ironic that you are trying to get me to "prove God exists" when you are commenting on a video that is literally putting forth an argument for the existence of God... Do you have an actual response to the argument in the video?

[@torreyintahoe]

@@hallboy5 Not only is there no evidence that there are gods but there is not even an indication that there are gods. The mechanism by which god operates is magic but no one has ever demonstrated that magic is a thing. If you could you'd be very rich. If you're saying that gods do exist then it is absolutely onerous upon you to prove that they do. It is philosophically impossible to prove that something does not exist but it has been proven that principles of christianity are false. It has been proven that genesis is false and so is the fable of adam and eve. It is also been demonstrated the jesus most likely was not a real person at all because he was never mentioned in any contemporary literature during his lifetime. Christians claim that the god they've created in their minds is all powerful, all good and all knowing yet there is evil in the world so he (or it) either doesn't care about it, doesn't know about it or is powerless to do anything about it. Face it friend, religion is a souvenir from the bronze age when we thought the earth was flat and didn't know where the sun went at night. One more thing, if you and I were born in Afghanistan, you would be a muslim but I would still be an atheist.

[@torreyintahoe]

@Edward Russell Ok caveman, still wondering where the sun goes at night?