The Argument From Beauty for God's Existence (Dr. Pruss Wilde Lecture)

[@bilalhussein9730]

Formalizing 'just look at the trees!'. I never thought I'd see the day. This is at once hysterical and intellectually stimulating.

[@UUu-xl3gk]

You have no argument. Only Strawmans, caricaturization, irrationality, lies and the same low iq reddit rethoric. Keep embarrassing yourself..

[@mickeyesoum3278]

Please add his other Wilde lectures as well; the argument from the falsity of skepticism is really neat and unique, then there's his argument from Forms.

[@CapturingChristianity]

On it, chief.

[@ApologeticsSquared]

@@CapturingChristianity And his argument from counterfactuals! (I don't know if he ever gave a lecture on it, though)

[@mickeyesoum3278]

@@ApologeticsSquared the one in the plantinga project volume? Yeah, it's interesting. As I remember it, the idea was like biting the bullet with Sorites (but w counterfactuals) and holding that there is an exact answer, but only knowable/possibly grounded in a being like God? Been a while since I last read it

[@zackmoore1351]

@@CapturingChristianity Have you heard of Jeremiah Cohen? Great channel that exposes systemic evil. Secret societies like freemasons as well as Hollywood's ties with the occult.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

@@CMVMic most people are firmly convinced that skeptical scenarios (BIV, cartesian demon, simulation, etc, which is what Pruss is talking about) are false, so the argument runs for them. It's not a out pyrrhonianism btw (though that is also false; I know LNC is true with certainty)

[@calebp6114]

Lecture starts at 8:07.

[@Phill3v7]

Since it seems to be popular here His particular points related to subjectivism: Relation to actual perceiver(s): Subjectivism The beautiful is what we perceive as beautiful or are attracted by. Attraction theory is implausible: one can be attracted to the ugly, say to fulfill curiosity. Perception theory needs more detail: qualia of beauty. Level of generality in the subjectivism: Particular: Every particular perceived as beautiful is beautiful. Rules: We have rules of beauty and everything that is beautiful according to the rules is beautiful. Patterns: Those things that are beautiful according to the laws of beauty that best systematize our judgments are beautiful (cf. Lewis on laws of nature). Particular: problem of bad taste and possibility of error Rules and patterns: too much extrinsicality: if I am admiring a proof or painting, it doesn’t cease to be beautiful when rules and patterns change. And why does beauty matter? (Contingent benefits?)

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@matswessling6600]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKINthe shroud of turin has been thoroughly debunked long time ago. only christian fanatics keeps believing it.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@matswessling6600 DEBUNKED?? HAHHAH ARE YOU STILL IN THE 1980S?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@matswessling6600 HOW CAN YOU FORGE SOMETHING EVE TOP SCIENTIST TODAY CANNOT DO

[@matswessling6600]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN ? how do you know that noone cannot do it? thats illogical. you cannot ever prove that noone cannot do it.

[@alemartinezrojas5285]

Aesthetic beauty is not necessary for the existence of any rational being. Beauty is intended to produce a reaction in the observer; entails agency. Only rational beings produce artifacts, paintings, architectural works with beauty,, that are intended and meant to be enjoyed. Nature has countless beautiful stuff, that it is enjoyed by us. It is clear that behind that beauty, there is intentionality. Only a Mind can have intentionality and creativity.

[@Seretar]

I listened to this because I have a really strong interest in aesthetics and philosophy of religion. While this was quite an interesting tour of the terrain, exploring (though in a rather basic way) some of the most popular theories of beauty available, I didn't hear a compelling new account offered. If the theory being proposed was the one that when we appreciate beauty we are appreciating the extent to which something participates in the divine, then I don't think there was enough there to really constitute an argument. I think perhaps the bar for what constitutes an "argument" was a bit low here: what we really want out of an argument is something rationally compelling, not just a story which connects certain features of our experience (although that's a start), but a series of reasons to prefer a particular story over others, and a set of specific features of our experience that this story explains over others. I didn't get that from this.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@oldpossum57]

The shroud of Turin? You have convinced yourself that this is evidence? Evidence of what? Thus far, the official position of the Papacy is, “No official position.” Pope J2P2, a conservative, Benedict another conservative, Pius XII a conservative, none of the modern popes have authenticated it. The scientists say it is fabric from the 12 century when it first appeared. They have also found evidence that the cloth has been painted. As to the biblical account, there is a big problem. The gospels tell a wonder story about a heroic rabbi, and these stories circulated for at least three decades before being written down by Marc. What we know about comparable cases is that convicted felons who were crucified were left on the cross to rot, d3cay, feed the buzzards and vermin. Eventually the bodies would be dumped in a common grave or ossuary. So there would be no ceremony’s. Shroud of Turin? I’d turn and shrug. Nothing there pal. Another theme park attraction. @@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN

[@joe-_-9614]

Cam, you should have stephen meyer on. The best speakers I've heard till date talk from the scientific point of view

[@thededohasani3830]

@Tommy S lmaoo

[@PigglePigSwillbucket]

from what I've read Meyer's work is more harmful to Christianity than beneficial, at least when it comes to his scientific conclusions

[@nathansamuel7837]

@@PigglePigSwillbucket I've never read Meyer, what conclusions would you say he holds on to that harms Christianity?

[@moderncaleb3923]

Nathan Samuel some Christians believe he’s harmful because he rejects evolution

[@ooooooppppp11]

@@moderncaleb3923 He doesn't "reject evoultion" full stop. He has his criticisms of theistic evolution, but mainly attacks neo-Darwinism. Which states that a purely random, unguided, undirected, natural process produced all of the biological complexity we see today.

[@jamieammons]

Any time I get to feeling like I'm smart, I only need to listen to one of these talks to realize I know nothing.

[@CapturingChristianity]

It helps to remember that intellectual humility is a virtue.

[@johnrockwell5834]

@@CapturingChristianity People say Beauty is subjective. But God makes Beauty objective. Because divinely ordained beauty is true and good. How can beauty be in the eye of the beholder if it is true and therefore actually exists outside of subjective exeperience and it is good?

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

John rockwell Beauty is subjective. What do you mean by God makes beauty objective? How is that not creating a square circle?

[@johnrockwell5834]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll Because the Scripture refers to Beauty. Otherwise God is a liar. Therefore it exists because God cannot lie.

[@jamieammons]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll Did you watch the lecture?

[@codyehmke1218]

I wonder if finding something beautiful actually roots to us being in awe of finding the creator impressive in creating it. Like paintings or video games or reality... :O very interesting

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@Apanblod]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN You mean the piece of cloth that has in no way been demonstrated to be authentic? Also, even if it was what it's claimed to be (which judging by the data available, it isn't) what would that demonstrate?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@robeltadesse8370]

Really thankful for this channel and ministry!

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@jacobcrayola9311]

Pruss’s Canadian accent is very prominent, interesting.

[@akpaul9883]

Hey! Alanzo from RZIM Canada here. Love this channel and Alexander Pruss (a fellow Canadian) is spectacular! Thanks for all you do here bro! Praying for this channel :)

[@jeffphelps1355]

I found this argument compelling. to see a painting of the sunset you recognise the beauty and appreciate the talent of the one who created it. Then take an actual sunset recognize the beauty and appreciate the one who created it

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Poor poor reasoning. 😕

[@pureone8350]

Isn't it only beautiful because there are minds there to experience the sunset?

[@CapturingChristianity]

You must know the future, because the video hasn’t even premiered yet!

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@CapturingChristianity I still want to watch it and listen to see if there are any new arguments under the sunset.. 😉

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@CapturingChristianity great channel, love your ministry.

[@jeffphelps1355]

GENESIS 2:9 and out of the ground the Lord God made every tree pleasant to look at......

[@jeffphelps1355]

a fall day in the Midwest with the color change is beautiful

[@JohnVC]

I've seen some ugly trees, so yeah not really

[@Jodogio]

​@@JohnVC🤓

[@Velakowitz]

Roger Scruton also provides lots of reflection on the argument of beauty.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGSshoOqZrR0m8k

[@Thlastday00]

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man(Jesus) is to come in the glory of his Father(God of The Heavens) with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@davidhanson972]

I would love to have access to the slides that Dr. Pruss is using, if possible, they’re a bit hard to read.

[@CapturingChristianity]

They’re in the description.

[@davidhanson972]

Capturing Christianity thanks! Love the work you’re doing!

[@jonahhackett3845]

pruss vs oppy sometime plz

[@tomgreene2282]

Yes indeed ...on evil??

[@eugengolubic2186]

Pruss doesn't do interviews or debates, but yes, that would be nice. I would probably had to watch it again and in a slow motion because I often don't understand such high intellects.

[@ronlabouliere6298]

Nonsense

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@thespiritofhegel3487]

PRINCESS OF FRANCE: Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean, Needs not the painted flourish of your praise: Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye, Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues: I am less proud to hear you tell my worth Than you much willing to be counted wise In spending your wit in the praise of mine. - Shakespeare, 'Love's Labour's Lost', Act 2 Scene 1.

[@logos8312]

I don't get the argument. Maybe it's because I'm somewhere "on the spectrum" but things don't really ever strike me as "beautiful" in some abstract sense. Efficient? Sure. Elegant? Yep. But I don't get this qualia that people supposedly have of something being "beautiful" in this mysterious way. So not only do I not know what's at stake in denying this concept, but from my experience, no one seems to agree on what things even have it. For example, I find paintings boring to look at. Even the "ZOMG they're so beautiful!" paintings. Boring. I'm a math guy so you might think that I'd find pop math stuff like games with primes, or mandelbrot sets, etc. as beautiful. Nope. Fibonaccia spirals bore me. The only thing that draws me to math is topics I don't think we can articulate about properly yet, and the draw there is in the unsolved language game, not some idea of "beauty". But this doesn't apply to me. Many mathematicians I know find beauty in different aspects of just math, and that's assuming they even like math in a way that's not "a living". Most normies I know are terrified of math, and it mentally pains them to discuss anything about it. Would this be one of Pruss's instances of mathematicians mistakenly thinking the ugly as beautiful? Who knows, since I still don't know what beauty even is. So I just sit back and watch the flame wars, wondering what the hell everyone's going on about. In the end I don't even know what to do with this. Most arguments I hear, I get the intuition behind a premise, I have something to evaluate. But for this argument, just feels like trying to catch smoke with a net.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

Maybe you're just defective in that you're radically incapable of grasping and appreciating beauty. Pruss says that he himself is incapable of properly appreciating musical beauty - one of the seminal forms of beauty. Perhaps you are just defective/incapable like Pruss is with music, but with every kind of beauty (or most forms at least). That would make you a very rare (and unfortunate) person, but it could be. Also, most normies are terrified of math, but that's because of its inherent challenges and difficulties, or bad memories from school, not its beauty or lack of beauty (to appreciate mathematical beauty you first gotta be reasonably good at it, which most people aren't).

[@logos8312]

@@mickeyesoum3278 I find certain kinds of music very pleasing to the ear to listen to. But I can explain that in terms of brain state reactions upon hearing certain kinds of notes (rhythms). Conversely "beautiful" pop, country, even classical music often bores me to tears. I mean people could say that I"m defective, I might argue that people's preoccupation with whatever this qualia "beauty" is, leaves them sentimental and easily amused. I'd rather be me than them. Imagine actually liking even 1/3 of the crap on the radio these days. Just imagine that. I'd want to kill myself.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

@@logos8312 again, maybe you're just defective when it comes to aesthetics. I certainly think that an inability to appreciate the beauty of the great works of arts, the exquisite and viscerally attractive, but also mysterious pull, of what we call "beautiful" in a Monet, a Caravaggio, a Michelangelo, etc; or in Mozart, Pergolesi, Dvorak, etc; beyond mere "pleasure" is certainly a defect of some kind. So perhaps your lack of experience will make such arguments not very impressive for you.

[@logos8312]

@@mickeyesoum3278 Could be, but on the flip side, that puts the proponent of the argument in quite a bind. Denial that there is some objective qualia (due in large part to their lack of observing it where others say it ought to be) of beauty means the argument itself demands the detractor be found defective. Not just disagreeable, or incorrect, but defective in being. Sounds like a pretty big problem, to the point where one can even wonder if this is an argument at all, or merely a shibboleth and an invitation to an agreed upon invitation?

[@ApologeticsSquared]

Do you find anything ugly? The qualia we all experience is the opposite of that. :)

[@nsp74]

Pruss is scary smart-William lane craig.

[@RighteousPaladin]

Interesting. I'm not sure that it's such a good argument, though. Maybe I lack a strong perception of beauty but that "pull" he's talking about seems like wonder which goes away through familiarity or in mature (or jaded) minds. Don't misunderstand me, I do believe that there is beauty, joy, comfort, wonder or whatever you want to call it and (like all good things) it comes from God; I just don't think that it's something you can logically deduce the existence of God from by itself.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

What do you think of these? The Meta Argument from Beauty 1) If beauty is not objective, then everything is equally beautiful; everything is beauty less. 2) Everything is not equally beautiful; everything is not beauty less 3) Therefore, beauty is objective. Beauty from design 1) Complex forms of beauty are best explained by design. 2) The natural world is filled with complex forms of beauty. 3) Therefore, the best explanation of the complex forms of beauty in the natural world is design. (1&2) 4) If the best explanation for the complex forms of beauty found in the natural world is design, then there exists a designer who created the natural world. 5) Therefore, there exists a designer who created the natural world. (3&4) 6) Therefore, God exists. (5) The most beautiful being 1) To cause an effect, the effect must exist in the cause in some way, either concretely or abstractly. 2) God is the cause of all beauty. 3) Therefore, God is the source of all beauty. (1&2) 4) If God is the source of all beauty, then he is the most beautiful being. 5) Therefore, God is the most beautiful being. (3&4)

[@amadubah8931]

Wow I've been waiting for this. Personally this is one of my favorite and I think one of the best arguments for the existence of God. The other day I saw 2 beautiful butterflys and then a cardinal that was red and black. When I saw this I thought to myself- "There is no way that natural unguided processes can produce the beauty in these animals."

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

You don’t think that’s a bit naive?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

umakemesmileswackin There are some not-that-bad arguments/evidence for God. The shroud of Turin is DEFINITELY not one of them. It’s been dated many times by different groups of people. It is never been shown to date close to Jesus’s lifetime. Even if you proved that it was on Jesus’s body, all the proves is that it once laid over Jesus. Doesn’t say he rose from the dead and doesn’t say that God exists.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll im not arguing for its authenticity it is debatable what im arguing is for it being a supernatural phenomena God is supernatural if there is a supernatural there is the possibility of God

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll i challenge every atheist to explain what they call a forgery they cant imagine they say its forgery but challenged to explain it they cant i cannot understand how a simple cloth with an image is making atheist DUMB

[@mofobecks]

To prove God’s existence? Prove? Really? Well I’m sold! Things are pretty so god!

[@joaoqgrossi]

It is not a mathematical proof, but it seems like a sound logical argument for the existence of God. It is an hour long video. It is more complex than that strawman that you presents here.

[@mofobecks]

@@joaoqgrossi this was 2 months ago and I can’t be bothered to watch it again so ok! If you have any compelling argument that things are beautiful and because god is _____ then god made everything, I’d love to hear it

[@Hbmd3E]

@@mofobecks Philosphy is for thouse who love the truth. They are not even bothered by youtube athiest who go around yelling "Prove to me that God exists!" there is mental truths that no one can prove scientifically like Love or negative motions like pain. You can always turn your sceptometer to the 10 and nothing is convincing to you. If you recognize there is category and there is uglynes in the world and beauty you can make thought game how high beauty can go or how low uglines can go? thats like heaven and hell. You may feel bad inside while knowing beauty doesent disappear, love doesent disappear happines joy peace doesent go anywhere from the world you just dont have it. One may experience heaven or hell in their life, one of these atributes is ugliness that one may feel if he feels bad inside. prove it scientifically you can show statistics from the suicides and give photos from the sad and glad faces to prove your case.. If you can come to the conclution that there is for sure good and evil in your own experienced life dont you want to strife to feel good? And what is grounding to that? So you can see yourself standing in the line of the good and evil what if they are God and the Devil? atleast possibiliy. Same with the consept of right and wrong moral argument everybody knows automatically these things right and wrong but some are willingly doing wrong and they know it.. In the naturalistic world view materialism this all is not real but radom movement of the particles. But Quantumphysics already is debunking materialism and shows that the consciousness is effecting to how reality manifests. kzbin.info/www/bejne/anSYoaRtjJqsiK8

[@mofobecks]

@@Hbmd3E also wtf Is a sceptometer?

[@Hbmd3E]

@@mofobecks Brother you can find it from this kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6Oqh5h4lLiDgMk

[@anthonyrowden]

Pruss = Beauty

[@vaskaventi6840]

43:54 for a second he caught me by surprise

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

I found this argument unconvincing. Beauty isn’t a thing outside of what we subjectively find pleasing. That’s all it is. Also, he cites mathematical facts in his list. He does realize that these mathematical facts are necessarily true/would be true even if God even if Didn’t exist, right?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

umakemesmileswackin Can you please stop spamming this? It’s not relevant.

[@JohnVC]

A better argument is called the argumentum deez nutttz

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll is that all you can say? how pathetic

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

umakemesmileswackin ?? Are you trolling? Or just 13?

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

*Atheist reads title* *Atheist doesnt watch or listen* *Atheist posts* "What a silly argument.. what will they think of next" And you wonder why Christians just stay Christian...

[@mockupguy3577]

I sometimes do that. But I wholeheartedly blame the click bait titles. Provoking titles produce agitated replies.

[@RadicOmega]

Rickard Bergelius there is literally nothing click baitey about the title

[@mockupguy3577]

RadicOmega , it was more of a general statement.

[@Apanblod]

Well, it is indeed a silly argument. A very, very, very silly argument. Perhaps the silliest of them all, in fact!

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

@@Apanblod what of his argument here did you not like? (Yes, I don't think you watched/understood it)

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

That moving background is too distracting. I'll listen sometime when I'm not looking to watch something.

[@bhocatbho]

It sounds like many believers in atheism did not have the patience to watch the video because it was though stuff and so they are making the usual mockery comments like the one on Ray Confort's banana without even considering it was a parody. Look at this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/emfadGiIhbuirJI. Our faith in God is based on rationality and on the use of the most powerful thing we have: our intellect, so we look for truth either in science or in the ontology. The only argument atheist had was the eternal universe but this is not an argument anymore because it was proven the universe had a beginning. An Atheist can only mocK. I pray to have someone who is a faithful and rational atheist to put forward proof for God inexistence. They say God does not exist and so they have the burden of proof.

[@jonburnett90]

Athiests are not convinced that God exists. Theists claim a supernatural being exists. The burden of proof is still on you guys sorry.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@jonburnett90 Atheism is the belief that God does NOT exist. Agnostics are not sure either way. I started out as an atheist, moved to being an agnostic, then after about fifty years of research and pondering, became sure that there must be a God. Not everyone simply acquires their beliefs from their parents.

[@jonburnett90]

@@ronaldmorgan7632 Atheism /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/ noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. By your definition I and many others would say we are not atheists as we don't know/believe he doesn't exist. We just don't see enough evidence to convince us. I'd genuinely like to know what convinced you, I've been an atheist since I was about 12 years old. Found out Santa's wasn't real then started seeing parallels between him and the G man. Genuinely though. What turned you from atheism? What convinced you god exists and which God?

[@oldpossum57]

Ray Comfort was not making a parody. Pruss isn’t in the least convincing to anyone who is skeptical about gods. Happily, we know a great deal more about the structure and content of the human mind through psychology. The god of the gaps has one fewer gap to stand on. Pretty soon, you will have to ask “ How many gods can dance on the head of a pin?” As there tens of thousands of gods, yes?

[@bhocatbho]

@@oldpossum57 Christians do not believe in the "God of the gaps”. This silly expression was coined by the extremely ignorant and arrogant Dawkins who misunderstood Jahweh (The Being who revealed himself as I Am) for the deities of Greek or Babylonian mythology. Christians believe in an infinite being existing beyond time, matter, and space Who at the beginning (Time) created the Earth (Matter) and the Heaven (Space). God made also “Man” in his image and Man with his mind can understand the World He created. Science was invented by Christians because they were convinced that the universe, being created by a mind could be understood. So they sought to discover the natural laws of order in an apparent Universe governed by chaos and unrestrained and mysterious forces. Maybe you could find interesting what Collins Francis Collins (an American physician-scientist who discovered the genes associated with numerous diseases and led the Human Genome Project, according to Wikipedia) told us in this video: “The language of god a scientist presents evidence of belief”.

[@charleywilkinson7093]

Perhaps death isn't beautiful, or at least not rightly so because it is of sin which is against God. I agree that beautiful things seem to point beyond themselves. E.g. creation tells of the glory if God Goodness, beauty and truth do seem to be very tangled.

[@gabrielteo3636]

Is there an argument from ugliness for the non-existence of God?

[@senseisaitama8447]

Insanity madness an ape a bird death, every thing Is a proof that god exist for this guy

[@heisenbergkierkegaard3982]

Well, atheist believe that everything disproves God's existence.

[@joshua_finch]

God created everything. And all the bad stuff is explained in the biblical narrative as well, as a result of rebellion of free creatures from God. So all is evidence for God.

[@joshua_finch]

The falsifiability is the possibility of an inner inconsistency or inner conflict lowering its probability. If most atheist philosopher experts didn't think Christianity was falsifiable they wouldn't attempt problems of evil objections. Also Paul says our faith is in vain if Christ didn't rise again. So it's falsifiable.

[@acyutanandadas1326]

Why is he being glorified for knowing what any one who reads the Purusha Sukta knows?

[@princessrainbow4448]

I think Rainbow is very beautiful, and it's remainds me of God ❤️

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@frankwhelan1715 the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it CAN YOU MAKE ONE

[@princessrainbow4448]

@@frankwhelan1715 LOL you're funny my brother...you made my day with your stream of urine....LOL but can you make a rainbow on the horizon?

[@Hbmd3E]

@@princessrainbow4448 Your beauty would make me to believe in God if I already not believed ( actually Im sitting on His lap so its not matter of believe to me :)

[@princessrainbow4448]

@@Hbmd3E oohhh...my brother, thank you, you touch my heart, that's very kind of you, but for me God is love and all this beauty is from Him 🙏

[@MarcosBetancort]

Did he say what beauty means in the abstract?

[@fauziajasia2548]

what does he mean by 'participation in God'???

[@zachdavenport8509]

I think he means that they contain something of God's nature.

[@mickeynoah6352]

This channel has some high level intellectual stuff going on here. Most of it flies over my head hehe, but anyways great video god bless.

[@JohnVC]

Don't let sophistry outsmart you.

[@richardstalker4769]

@@JohnVC I don't think any of these videos on this channel could be considered an attempt at deceiving anyone. You may think that they're wrong and so misinterpret the attempt and convincing someone with deceiving them, but hat's not the case.

[@JohnVC]

@@richardstalker4769 And how do you know this? In this video the guy takes 45 minutes to define beauty, and finally gets to his argument from ignorance to make the leap to the Christian God. How is that not sophistry? A key component of sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments. We don't know how beautiful stuff was created so therefore Christian God. 🥴 Why not just say we don't know why water is so wet? We don't know why mountains are so tall? We don't know why the sun is so hot? Lol, c'mon. Also, Cameron has been including these terrible lectures in order to create content for his echo chamber, because his channel now supports his family, so as the need for content increases the sophistry increases as well.

[@tomgreene2282]

This man is very bright ...but I find him a bit boring. too many lists can send an audience to sleep. Sunday homilists ?? Is this man a musician?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@jacoblee5796]

What about an argument from ugliness?

[@JFast-si8xu]

Thats proof for the devil

[@jacoblee5796]

@@JFast-si8xu And who made the devil?

[@JFast-si8xu]

@@jacoblee5796 that sound like a fun game. The Devil is a necessary being. It is responsible for the nothingness out which god created the universe. With out the devil there is no foundation for there to be nothing prior the gods creation of the universe :)

[@jacoblee5796]

@@JFast-si8xu WTF!? Do you think that made sense?

[@JFast-si8xu]

@@jacoblee5796 Now you know how i feel :)

[@indisa099]

Ok so this is how far we are stretching to prove god now.... Why not throw in one more and say that Venus did it, at this point clearly anything goes...

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

It's just a single observation. There are many compelling arguments.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@johnpate6597]

Why’d he have to slurp up that wawa at like 8:23?

[@Nixeu42]

I feel like this guy basically admits in the first five minutes that he hasn't though this argument through, when he says he'll be referencing lectures he hasn't even written down yet in his first two lectures. He plays that off with a statement that it's best to save explaining more complex topics for later lectures...but if those details aren't just clarification or building on the ideas of the first two lectures, why reference them at all? He admits they're integral to his ideas, but he hasn't even thought them through yet, to the point where he's not certain whether or not he'll be revising them based on new evidence. That's not a good sign for how strong his reasoning is, if he's having to come up with the foundation of the argument post hoc.

[@barry.anderberg]

Do you have any idea who "this guy" is?

[@Nixeu42]

@@barry.anderberg Nope, and i don't give a damn. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The author or orator is frankly unimportant.

[@barry.anderberg]

@@Nixeu42 why so angry?

[@Nixeu42]

@@barry.anderberg Because arguments from authority annoy me, and they're often mixed with implicit ad hominem to boot.

[@matswessling6600]

and there went my last appreciation of pruss... how can this man be allowed to waste peoples time...

[@Apanblod]

I think it's fair to say that this may very well be the worst argument conceived for any position in the history of mankind.

[@barry.anderberg]

Because.....

[@Apanblod]

@@barry.anderberg Because nothing about us finding aesthetic value in some things points to a god. He's basically just presenting a list of phenomena he personally finds 'beautiful'. Beauty by definition can't be objective, so I don't know what to say other than that I find it completely ridiculous.

[@barry.anderberg]

@@Apanblod Okay. Why should I agree with you? You made an assertion, not an argument.

[@Apanblod]

@@barry.anderberg Well, insomuch as that is true, so does Dr. Pruss in this video. I do think I actually made an argument (that consists of statements, naturally), but I may be completely off on what constitutes an argument in this case. I didn't put it in a syllogistic form, if that's what you meant?

[@Phill3v7]

Aside from the ridiculously hyperbolic judgement of "worst argument in history". Perhaps you're confusing his abductive approach with a deductive one? His "personal list of beautiful phenomenon" in so far as they may be subjective seems to be part of the lecture. He's looking for an explanatory theory that incorporates the widest variety of beautiful phenomenon while simultaneously explaning them in a comprehensive manner. It is not some deduction by way of (example) 1. Objective beauty exists if and only if God exists. 2. beauty exists 3. God exists It's obviously exploratory in nature, trying to make sense of his most basic intuitions and perceived feature of reality. If you'd like to present a "story" ie explanatory theory that makes more sense, presumably "subjectivism", then you're going to have to deal with some of the issues he raised related to that theory. Otherwise your hyperbolic inflammatory remarks simply seem unfounded.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

As an artist and atheist, I fully reject the lecture. Absolutely strongly strongly disagree. When I sold or held receptions, people loved my sketchbooks. I sketched, made notes, and wrote thoughts in Moleskine books. It was a wonderful communication tool. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the books or the finished art spring from god. The beauty rests on the principles and elements of art. Things like broken line and broken color. This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. That water bottle can be made beautiful using foundational rules.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@Whatsisface4]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN It really isn't.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@Whatsisface4 WHY?

[@bemusedatheist5706]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN Because it's most likely a fake. Just like the rest of the religion.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@bemusedatheist5706 HOW CAN YOU SAY IT IS A FAKE LET US AGREE ON SOMETHING A FAKERY IS A DOABLE THING SO CAN YOU MAKE A REPLICA OF THE SHROUD WITH ALL ITS CHARACTERISTICS?

[@Doubtyadoubts]

I’m soo confused yo!

[@DivinityOperation]

Take a philosophy class

[@codyehmke1218]

Beauty is objective!!!!

[@Whatsisface4]

No it isn't, it's subjective.

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

It is absolutely not.

[@gerardt3284]

Have you not heard the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

[@pureone8350]

It really is subjective

[@johnrockwell5834]

@@gerardt3284 Yes. That means beauty is false and non-existent.

[@mgreene011]

Well I lasted for about 15 minutes. Going to crack open my copy of “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” Damn good book so far.

[@Whatsisface4]

That theism hasn't met it's burden of proof isn't a matter of faith.

[@aidan-ator7844]

@Tommy S his apologetics appears dishonest and illogical. Him being dishonest is just your opinion. He often comes across illogical because he has to deliver his points in a really compressed and short manner. I am sure if you sat down and talked to him, he wouldn't be as illogical as he comes across.

[@mgreene011]

@@Whatsisface4 It takes much less faith to be a theist than to believe that life spontaneously generated from nonliving chemicals LOL.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@mgreene011 That is a classic argument from the point of view of personal incredulity, ie, I can't see how life could come about naturally, therefore God. That's a fallacious point of view. Btw, you are made from non living chemicals, and if you take some of them away from your body you will die. If you take iron, which I presume you think of as non living, away from your body you will be dead very quickly. That is an example of something non living that plays a key role in life. Your laughter rings hollow.

[@mgreene011]

@@Whatsisface4 yes, we were made by our creator from dust. That is a more rational explanation for the origin of man then non-living chemicals spontaneously generating into the living cell.Materialism is bad Philosophy.

[@abidd]

So who made all the ugly things?

[@Coteincdr]

God, but the big picture is beautiful. Like a beautiful building has sewage.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

Beauty points to its ultimate designer: God.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

but atheist will still not believe it the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@gerardt3284]

It also points to the human brain appreciating beauty as a product of evolution.

[@JohnVC]

I can with the same amount of confidence assume that beauty is produced by deez nuts, because we have about the same amount of proof. I just happen to have a little bit more proof because deez nuts are real and demonstrable.

[@JohnVC]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN get passed what?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@JohnVC the challenge of replicating it

[@bemusedatheist5706]

Very interesting, but not a convincing argument for God.

[@aidan-ator7844]

Probably. I used to be an atheist and an agnostic and I always thought how the arguments alone weren't convincing arguments at all. It was only once I compiled all the different factors together and analysed them where I was convinced of God.

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

Aidan - ator But why does adding up a bunch of unconvincing arguments suddenly convince you? Wouldn’t you need some of them to be convincing?

[@aldrichemrys]

lllULTIMATEMASTERlll kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWKzcnuQaNyZidk

[@aldrichemrys]

@Tommy S I agree.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@aidan-ator7844 Care to share some of these factors? You have captured my curiosity.

[@maniac4239]

The argument from beauty for god's existence! whatever next, the argument from the shape of a banana for god's existence?

[@jacoblee5796]

LOL i'm not sure if you know this already and are being sarcastic but Ray Comfort already has an argument for god because of the shape of a banana.....these people are nuts!

[@maniac4239]

@@jacoblee5796 - Mr Comfort is well known and accomplished christian prankster.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Great comment. I had forgotten Ray Comfort's banana as "perfectly fitted for the human hand" trick - ugh, argument.

[@giladpachter4546]

@@jacoblee5796 Ray Comfort has to be a double-agent in the service of atheism . . . it's either that or it's a miracle that he doesn't end up killing himself on a daily basis due to stupidity.

[@RadicOmega]

Yep

[@davidfoley4585]

His arguments against evolutionary debunking are just remarkably poor. Why should it be surprising that things we find beautiful expand beyond things that would have been selected for evolutionarily? Certainly he would agree that our sense of what is edible or inedible is heavily determined by natural selection, yet many of the *most addicting* foods we have today didn't exist in our evolutionary environment. No human in a hundred thousand years tasted high fructose corn syrup or partially hydrogenated oils, but modern humans found them very good tasting. What a paradox! The only explanation is that those things that taste good, taste like God!

[@psuedonym8344]

How dare another human being make such beautiful music/poetry/art when I can't? It must be God that did it. -Dawkins ... it's evidence... ... theist? 😬 🤭

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@thelimewoodwingmen9669]

Signs are not evidence

[@joserivera8429]

I’m sure you have followed signs to it’s evident destination. And I bet you haven’t watched the video.

[@thelimewoodwingmen9669]

Jose Rivera I followed an algorithm on KZbin to this video that was human made, and am uninterested in signs or things that people just think it’s god cuz they can’t explain it. Only after evidence

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@thelimewoodwingmen9669 so you believe that all things can be explained naturally?

[@thelimewoodwingmen9669]

umakemesmileswackin 100% of things happen naturally.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@thelimewoodwingmen9669 THEN EXPLAIN TO ME BY NATURAL MEANS HOW THE IMAGE GOT INTO THE SHROUD OF TURIN I WANT TO HEAR YOUR NATURAL EXPLANATION

[@gerardt3284]

We evolved to appreciate beauty is a better argument.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

why?

[@joaoqgrossi]

It only make sense if there is a standart for beauty.

[@firstnamesurname6550]

Conclusion, The bible is not inspired by god.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@cnault3244]

So ugliness is evidence that God doesn't exist...

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

the best argument for the possibity of God is the shroud of Turin no atheist will ever get passed it

[@gerardt3284]

To demonstrate that a supernatural invisible man created the universe, an old blanket isn't entirely convincing..

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@gerardt3284 the argument is that there is natural and supernatural what is so hard to explain how an image got into a cloth? lets see what supernatural mean supernatural [ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl] ADJECTIVE (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "a supernatural being"

[@psuedonym8344]

knowyourmeme.com/photos/1053352-jesus did I pass?

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

@@psuedonym8344 SADLY NO

[@psuedonym8344]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN but..but.. the sketch doesn't match the composite.. 😥 apologies,, I wasn't aware u were a forensic detective who visits Italy to see it.