Why Beauty is Powerful Evidence for God (Incredible Interview)

[@jamestheredd]

Is a philosopher legitimate if they don't have a bookcase behind them on a Skype call?

[@nz8127]

Good one.

[@JLeiva-ph9ly]

no, they are not. 8)

[@mkl2237]

No. The bookcase is a must

[@kurtjensen1790]

An Eastern Orthodox friend here. I really love this channel. I recently had someone bring up the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" as being a fact to challenge what he believed was my idea and theism in general. So I wanted to explore the ideas more. Great stuff, Guys!

[@maniac4239]

Why Bananas Unequivocally Points to God.

[@arktheball]

MaNIaC how to clearly illustrate you don’t understand what they are saying in one simple sentence

[@maniac4239]

@@arktheball - How can you possible deny the beauty of the banana, it’s the atheists nightmare. The banana was designed by almighty god for the benefit of human beings. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2Xcc6msfM6SaKM

[@pkosh1]

You live up to your name troll 👍

[@davidjulian8643]

C'mon guys, atheists and Christians can come together to poke fun @ the banana man

[@GodlessGubment]

@@davidjulian8643 mockery is the best response

[@DaddyBooneDon]

It seems to me that while we may disagree on what might be beautiful, the underpinning agreement would be that beauty exists in abstract terms. This foundational aspect is universal, therefore it is objective. This is the part that is true about beauty aside from our subjective opinions.

[@dedmo79]

hundreds of years ago, mountains and forests were seen as terrifying objects-homes to thieves, spirits and demons. Only since the romantic era has such wilderness been seen as “beautiful”. as far as our subjective experience of beauty being evidence for God, why single out beauty? what about our experience of fear? or Disgust? would we say those experiences are evidence for a deity? that doesn’t seem to be tenable.

[@stevenvanveen5384]

We do not have this same discussion about objectivity and subjectivity about Math. But not everybody has the same capacity to comprehend a mathematical equation when they see one. We do not then say that because we cannot understand what we see, it is not true. We usually accept the universal truth of mathematics, even though we all have varying degrees of understanding it. Why is it different with beauty?

[@1CASSIODORUS]

I find arguments for philosophical materialism to be unconvincing .

[@gowdsake7103]

Its mental jerking off

[@kurtjensen1790]

Me too!

[@LostArchivist]

Look at the work of Bishop Robert Barron. If you are interested in this argument more.

[@jameswoodard4304]

I think part of the general cynicism toward beauty judgment comes from the intellectualization of art that has occured in modern times. Much modern art is intended to find its value in the communication of ideas or (as pointed out) in the subjective *search* for meaning or beauty rather than in a mere representation of an aesthetically beautiful object. So, art is now less about an agreed-upon standard of aesthetic beauty than it is about intellectual good or emotive-psychological experience. People who appreciate these later things may refer to such works as "beautiful," but not be referring to aesthetics at all. They may even consider a work to not be the least bit aesthetically-pleasing, but care little as that is not the value they were seeking from the work. So, trends in modern art likely mask the very real general agreement that still pertains to aesthetic judgement, because such aesthetic judgement is no longer seen as a necessary point of art. But the average person has little care or patience for such fine points, is cynical regarding people arguing so widely about the relative value of what is often rather aesthetically unappealing art, and throw up their hands in surrender. "Ah, it's clearly all just in the eye of the beholder. Why bother discussing it seriously?" However, if discussion were only ever restricted to aesthetic judgment, they would find far greater agreement on generalities and only wide arguments concerning finer points. This modern state of art combines with the above-mentioned moral abhorrence that people today have developed against regarding absolutely anyone as less physically beautiful than anyone else, to form a sense that it is just the civilized and humane thing to do to adamantly refuse to make even tangential reference to an objective standard of beauty or to discuss the subject in an even remotely objective fashion.

[@shostycellist]

I’m in the arts, if that means anything to anyone. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think the best way to show the objective nature of beauty is simply to link it to goodness and truth, as has been done for millennia, going back at least to Socrates. If you can show that moral goodness and truth are objective and then appeal to people’s sense of beauty in these things, then you have a good argument that beauty, at least in certain instances, is objective. Who doesn't see beauty in simple kindness to others, love shown to someone in need, or in more heroic actions like sacrificing oneself to save others, or even in the rescuing of an abandoned, frightened dog? These are beautiful things because they are also (morally) good and true (they speak to how we ought to act). And to us Christians, the most beautiful event in all history is what Christ did for us, on the cross and in his burial and resurrection. Conversely, isn’t immoral behavior ugly such as gratuitous violence, hatred, selfishness, or taking advantage of the vulnerable? When we sin it creates fracture, disorder, friction, and sickness within and without. Those things that are morally beautiful bring harmony, order, redemption, and healing. Beautiful art is similar. It reflects the harmony, redemption, and order we see in goodness and truth and especially in the Gospel. It can help bring inner healing, solace, and make life worth living. Of course, good art also has tension and even chaos but it ultimately resolves or art redeems the chaos by framing it in the beautiful (Roger Scruton).

[@axolotl5327]

Dr. Tallon: "If you want to take a full-throated subjectivist position, then there is in fact no stable meaning for any term of aesthetic judgment." Exactly. That's what subjectivism means. Once I realized that aesthetic judgment concerns your feelings about a thing, rather than the thing itself, things got a whole lot clearer. (Incidentally, this realization came several decades ago, and nothing since then has given any reason to either doubt it or lament it.) Dr. Tallon apparently finds this viewpoint unsatisfactory. But he offers no argument that might lead others to share his dissatisfaction. And that's not surprising, since his lack of satisfaction is itself simply a feeling. I'm not clear what it would mean to provide an argument for a feeling...but I'm clear that Dr. Tallon has not provided one for his.

[@robertlewis6915]

From a Christian perspective, which you may not share, if beauty is truly subjective, then when the Bible says something is beautiful, then the Bible can be truly wrong, if somebody happens to disagree.

[@chrisjohn3909]

@@robertlewis6915 Hey Robert, what kinds of things does the Bible call beautiful?

[@robertlewis6915]

@@chrisjohn3909 Psalm 48, for instance, calls Mount Zion "beautiful". There are other instances, but that is a good start.

[@chrisjohn3909]

@@robertlewis6915 Sorry, I misread your first comment! I guess there are lots of different ways to use the word 'beautiful' though and lots of various contexts in the Bible (from poetry to prophecy to letters etc). I guess that puts an interesting spin on the topic too. Food for thought, for me! :)

[@vladislavstezhko1864]

It is solipsism

[@AndyJCapes]

Hey Cam, could you put a link to that book that you guys kept referencing? I couldn't find it in the description, and when googling around, the only ones I found for the book were like 80 bucks or something. Thanks :)

[@bj374464]

If it’s published by a university press, that’s probably why it’s so expensive :/

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

Edit: I'm not being shadow banned. KZbin was just being weird. It's an interesting idea. I'm an artist and I've spent many hours thinking about beauty- what it is, what it means. I spend most of my time chasing after it, trying to coax it out of empty space. It's hard to make sense out of such a blatantly impractical endeavour and yet I couldn't imagine doing anything else with my life!

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

Hooray! This one worked :D

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

@QQminusS I have no idea what you meaned, but I wasn't being shadow banned, it was just acting weird this time.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

@QQminusS I suppose I do, if such a thing exists. But I think beauty is entirely subjective, so "true beauty" seems oxymoronic to me.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

@QQminusS I really haven't got a clue what you mean by any of this. Are you saying I'm a communist because I think beauty is subjective?

[@Fairfax40DaysforLife]

I'm a Christian but I don't get it.

[@gowdsake7103]

What a very astute statement !

[@Apanblod]

I think you're all the wiser for it, this barely qualifies as an argument.

[@TheBibleisArt]

Regarding the illusiveness of beauty at the beginning of the discussion. I think that part of the reason why it seems to be illusive is because philosophers/theologians don't have much training in design. I discuss this here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnOknIyMh6mmjMk. If you work at a design studio, your critiques assume a set of objective standards about hierarchy, contrast, scale, balance, etc. Furthermore, those same principles are taught in every design book. I'm not saying there is nothing illusive, but often the attribution of illusiveness (not directed at you, Philip) is more due to a lack of the knowledge of the art than the nature of the art. Thanks again, guys.

[@jameswoodard4304]

Sorry, I ran out of time and could only watch about 1/2 of the video. Do they ever get around to having Dr. Tallon actually state the Argument from Beauty directly, and if so when? I would have thought they might start by defining some terms and then state the actual argument, followed by discussion, but they seem to be starting with general discussion while defining a few terms along the way.

[@cliffordbohm]

It is known that we are pattern-seeking agents. Pattern detection, it can be argued, would have evolutionary benefits (i.e. being able to detect patterns will allow for better future prediction). The fact that we find complex visuals (the waves at the beach, sunsets, stary nights) can all be explained by the fact that we are pattern-seeking agents. Check out "hierarchical temporal memory" (HTM). This is a theory that attempts to explain how brains encode information. The theory explains neuron structures in the brain that wire themselves in such a way that associations are made. HTM provides a theory that could explain how it is that we are able to detect and remember complex patterns without needing to appeal to divinity, dualism or other supernatural ideas.

[@ethanrichard4950]

Hey Cameron, I just watched the video you put up of the interview with Dr. Philip Tallon and the argument of beauty. The link to his website in the description took me to a site of porn. Maybe it was just some ad on my phone (I hope not) but I think the actual website I followed via the link was pornographic.

[@Supersofter128]

I have an issue with the establishment of objective beauty. I don’t think that u can jump to an objective beauty from our subjective intuition that things are beautiful in the same way u can’t jump to objective morality from our subjective intuitions. I say this as a current agnostic that leans towards theism. I simply do not think there is a way to show either morality or beauty is objective, even though they may be. In both of these cases, I feel evolution can explain these phenomena to a significant extent. You mention that we find things dangerous to us beautiful, which does provide some evidence against the evolutionary theory of the development of beauty, but this very well could be an error, or glitch in the system that has evolved. Would we not expect to see these errors in a complex and unguided system? I think it is probable that we would. Would love to hear others thoughts on this!

[@kylexinye1990]

FransicoGuadalupeHidalgo PabloCarlitosJuanTan So, as someone who is just getting into this argument (I'm an odd sort of theist; I love obscure and weird arguments for God), I have some thoughts. So, on the new synthesis this is not expected, potentially, but on process structuralism and other more adequate evolutionary theories, it is less expected as it is far less random than neo darwinism. I think a strong argument against this idea of "would we expect this sort of glitch on evolution", and I would say ... it actually seems incredibly unlikely. This kind of a glitch seems like, if it developed, would go in the opposite direction of a survival based mutations. This is literally (pardon potential over exaggerations) one of the worst possible things to make it through an evolutionary process; you are literally attracted to your predator. This seems completely upside down to me, though I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. A quick note on natural moral realism though (by the way, there's a great youtube video by inspiringphilosophy which critiques it and should give a pretty good intro), this also has a major flaw in it as there are many altruistic acts we preform which are totally counterintuitive to survival, either individual or collective that we preform because they are morally right, so we would expect that these would be weeded out of the evolutionary process because some are totally useless. Again, just some brief thoughts on that, I'd be interested in hearing yours. There are some strong philosophical arguments against natural moral realism too, but I'm not well versed enough in them that I would want to defend them yet. By the way, for the record I'm actually really excited to be having this discussion, firstly because it's a subject of personal enjoyment, and secondly because you're an agnostic, and almost all of the agnostics I've known have been incredibly great people and highly open to discussion. Especially online internet atheist are regularly (though not exhaustively) inflamitory and insulting, and totally unwilling to have open dialogue, so coming upon someone like yourself who is is quite encouraging. Looking forward to it!

[@Yameen200]

As an agnostic also leaning towards theism more, i find the objective morality argument much more in favour of god. The whole beauty argument im not sure never really took it seriously. Though i would say the argument from beauty can be conflated with the argument for happiness/purpose/desire which arent fully compatible with evolutionary processes.

[@Yameen200]

@@kylexinye1990 Yes I agree that any good convo with skeptics are usually ones with those more agnostic not the hard atheist types. Most of those convos are fruitless point scoring for the sake of ego. I think this question before any debates on god is crucial " Does a person WANT God to exist" This influences every convo. If the person psychologically doesnt care about an afterlife or a god no argument will ever be valid to them. Of course its a double edged sword. People that WANT god to exist will be more fitting to take arguments easily. So there has to be a balance of skepticism & desire

[@kylexinye1990]

The Holistic Soul Absolutely! And I do my best to acknowledge implicit bias, which is actually part of the reason I love debating people. For me, in a vacuum, I might be perfectly happy to just leave everything be once I'm confident in it. However, by going out and having discussions, it allows me to strengthen my own worldview, and see holes that I may not have seen before.

[@Yameen200]

@Destynation Z Thanks, Need to add this to my reading list. Have you checked the book Evolution 2.0. Ive only skimmed through this one but the author also tries to show the darwinian evolution of natural selection + random mutation as limited & not enough. Other processes are required as well. EDIT : The author of the genetic entropy is a YEC. Im much more doubtful of his views now. He seems to dogmatic

[@bryanstortenbecker2724]

Cameron: I love the argument from beauty, I think it's a really good indicator that God exists. So why don't more philosophers use it? Dr Tallon: Because it's pretty weak. My summary of the first 8 minutes. Are we being punked here?

[@namapalsu2364]

I don't think it's weak. I think it's because it's too difficult to grasp.

[@Tinesthia]

Bryan Stortenbecker This is very common for Braxton, Cameron, and apologists in general. See: Cam’s video art that states “BEAUTY PROVES GOD EXISTS” while Philip giving the argument is much more humble saying he would never call it proof but maybe a small amount of evidence for. Cameron did this again just days ago with the Jewish man he had on that presented a strange case for the Exodus. Apologists could exercise more humility and honesty on the actual strength of their arguments. But so could most people I suppose, and it could make sense that they use catchy click-bait hyperbole to help grow their channels.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@wadebacca I say apple, you say pourouma cecropiaefoli. I say "difficult to grasp," you say "coherence." Check the definition, man.

[@bryanstortenbecker2724]

@@namapalsu2364 No, not difficult at all. There is a reason why the statement "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is around. It's because there is no objective view of beauty.

[@RadicOmega]

Bryan Stortenbecker Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, William Lane Craig, Joshua Rasmussen, Brian Leftow, Alvin Plantinga, and many more, have all used versions of the argument from beauty. Many philosophers use it, and many atheists such as Felipe Leon, Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, William Rowe, take it very seriously and have tried to respond to it

[@Apanblod]

I'm sorry but this might be the silliest argument I've ever heard, not just for theism or Christianity, but for anything. Even if there was somehow an objective measure of beauty, or even an actual existent 'thing' in the universe we could label beauty, which I can fairly confidently say there simply isn't, how on earth would that necessitate, or even hint at, the existence of the Christian god? Why single out 'beauty' as something special? Why not the 'argument from sadness'? And would the 'argument from ugliness' somehow counter the argument from beauty?

[@arhylle]

Because beauty doesn't have a purpose in the naturalistic worldview. Like what they pointed out about the predators and black holes, humans whose instincts and sole purpose in life is to survive, according to naturalism, anything that threatens to prevent us from surviving wouldn't be beautiful in our eyes.

[@He.knows.nothing]

How about, instead of sourcing philosophers from the past few centuries, we looked instead at social psychologists and neuroscientists who have been studying the perception of beauty as if it were the bi-product of natural selection in our psychological evolution? Btw, determinism is true.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Your adhrerence to determinism is blatant cop out and attempt to become irresponsible of your actions

[@He.knows.nothing]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n that bit was sarcastic (it doesn't take a genius to deduce that after seeing Cameron open with "btw, Christianity is true"), however, determinism removes no responsibility. It just takes a more nuanced approach to behavior by analyzing the biological and environmental factors that "determine" it. It actually creates more responsibility as it not only encompasses the behavior of the individual, but also that of those who influenced the individual, be it accomplises, peers, parents, ideologies, etc etc. If a psychopath has a brain tumor, or someone snaps from ptsd, they can plead insanity because their ability to rationalize is biologically hindered/compromised. If someone commits a crime because of their ideological convictions, responsibility is not removed from them, but responsibility is added to the ideology that motivated it. We already treat people as though their behavior is determined or at least influenced by their biology or environment. The idea that will has been totally free from the mind has been extinct in our legislative systems for centuries. Imagine if someone was beaten by their father mercilessly and that taught them to beat their kids as they grew older. In a domestic violence case, determinism places responsibility on both the father and the father's father for conditioning the child into aggressive behavior. It doesn't remove any responsibility from the primary individual. Refining determinism, however, also allows us to factor in social factors that determine behavior such as culture and poverty. This allows us to also hold society accountable for the actions of individuals. This does NOT mean that the individual isn't accountable. It just means that we can no longer ignore the accountability of the society. If there are institutions that promote poverty, then those institutions are partly responsible for the crime committed in those areas as they increase the disparity of individuals that increases their likelihood for risky behavior. Any argument saying that the individual who committed the crime isnt responsible because his behavior is determined is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. A logical fallacy that attempts to gain support by appealing to your desire for justice rather than forcing you to actually look into what proponents of determinism have rationalized.

[@stevenvanveen5384]

Could it be, that we can see beauty in things like black holes, because we do not see a moral drive behind its actions?

[@chrisray9653]

We need to meet aliens to flesh out this Platonic realm.

[@BRNRDNCK]

Cameron, on your livestream a few days ago, I asked if you thought it a good idea to start my own KZbin channel dedicated to rebutting popular atheist videos online, and you said it depended on my ability, time commitment, etc. I’ve since realized it may be far better to contribute to a base like yours which is already built to attract philosophical attention than to start my own channel. If I sent you a script for my idea for a video in response to a video by CosmicSkeptic (for example), would you consider using it yourself in conjunction with your own thoughts?

[@BRNRDNCK]

This would also allow you to pick and choose what you want if you like any of my responses for Christian apologetics.

[@panosfillipou14]

@@BRNRDNCK Please do . It is important work . Wish you the best .

[@BRNRDNCK]

QQminusS That’s an interesting idea and I’ll consider it.

[@drumrnva]

16:16 to a dung beetle, poop isn't ugly. It's life.

[@edwardtbabinski]

Netflix has a show titled, Explained, and season two features an episode on Beauty. Worth a peek, it is not too long. Light on philosophy, heavy on evolutionary insights along with cognitive science.

[@spacedoohicky]

My first thought on seeing the title was "evolution". The science has a lot to say on beauty which has nothing to do with religion.

[@spacedoohicky]

@Qwerty It's a suggestion for non-scientist people to watch that would be easier to consume than reading thousands of studies explaining the same thing. I'm fairly sure the majority of people watching aren't scientists. Those who are scientists would either already know, or they would be seeking out the science literature.

[@spacedoohicky]

@Qwerty It depends on who made it. I haven't seen the show, but I'm familiar with the same science. Netflix, much like KZbin, varies in it's quality as far as documentary content goes. There's also religious propaganda on there. That's mostly because they put whatever they think people will watch on their platform. But there's other content that is more precise which can be verified by who they interview. If people interviewed are well respected in science then what they say is probably more reliable than the rest. And there's a plethora of debunkers who debunk documentaries that are wrong. So we can know that way too if some documentary is unreliable, or reliable as the case may be when debunkers haven't responded. A person can just search KZbin for "debunk (documentary name)" to find that.

[@edwardtbabinski]

Qwerty I am not an atheist.

[@edwardtbabinski]

Qwerty Even the Bible appears to be a sloppy, careless sensationalist source of non academic information, but there are parts I like and/or agree with, notably the sections dealing with practical moral wisdom. I hope there is more to life after death, but the questions are many. See Miracles of All Religions religiousmiracles.blogspot.com/2013/02/miracles-of-all-religions-provide-crazy.html

[@Daz19]

This seems like a top down vs bottom up argeument. Have we evolved to find some things beautiful or was it divinely designed to appear beautiful to humans. I'd refer to the puddle analogy. For which I find the evolutionary argument more convincing.

[@colinguyan9704]

In general we find familiar things nice and unfamiliar things nasty. He even argues that learning more makes opinions line up which totally concurs with this. It's an idiotic argument and I can't understand why anyone thinks it's even an argument.

[@TheBrunarr]

The puddle analogy has been debunked over and over

[@colinguyan9704]

@@TheBrunarr How can an analogy be debunked? The puddle argument is that something that looks designed isn't necessarily designed and that's just logical deduction. You can argue that in this case the design must be caused by a designer, but since you have no evidence for that the puddle is more likely than god.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@colinguyan9704 www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/should-a-puddle-be-surprised-it-exists-should-we

[@TheBrunarr]

So essentially, for anyone who doesn't want to read that, the puddle analogy is an example of an anthropic principle, which have been debunked over and over. Even Dawkins, who used to hold to anthropic principle arguments, has rejected them.

[@GodlessGubment]

look at the sunset and trees!!!

[@GodlessGubment]

@@midlander4 nice 👍

[@benjaminschooley3108]

Because I can cover up the view of my mailbox roughly with my fist from about 20 feet away, that means tomorrow I am going to get a letter from the president telling me that he wants to give me the medal of freedom. There, just wanted you to know what it was like listening to this..

[@benjamin.misantone]

What would be a response to why I find beauty in sad things?

[@jessecamping]

Another Good Interview !!! :)

[@G14U]

Cameron, got to stop saying ‘proves’ in your titles...I’m sure it helps get angry people viewing and raises you youtube account but its embarassing to us theists when you have a title like that and then the dude you have on has a more humble approach to the topic. We can’t prove God exists so maybe say ‘evidence’ or ‘infers’ or something like that.

[@chrisray9653]

Indeed, way too many condescending jackasses in apologetics today. They are just bullies. They are so disrespectful to The Other.

[@cget]

Even I as a Christian, got annoyed at the Exodus "proof" the other day.

[@youthresist8956]

It’s just as bad when atheists put “debunked” in the title

[@chrisjohn3909]

I don't find this a problem - I see it as a statement of intent rather than a statement of finality...

[@brando3342]

You mentioned it at the start. I actually really think the argument for beauty and ugliness, is similar if not the same as the argument for good and evil. If God didn't exist, then there would only be evil. However, we would not recognize it as evil, it would just "be". There would be no judgment, we would be blind to any possible parsing of actions into moral categories. In the same way, if God did not exist, there would only be chaos or ugliness. However we would not be able to judge it as such, as there would be no reference to the contrary. We would be blind to anything actually being ugly, it would just "be". The fact that we can recognize these things makes us human and shows we are made by God and in the image of God.

[@davidayisi7699]

This clarified it nicely for me. Thanks very much 🙌🏿

[@boguslav9502]

@@wadebacca In a way this reinforces the theists point. Evolution is a very poor explanation of Will, bueaty, and many other things we subjectively anjoy yet see huge overlap in. Things that are by all means abstract concepts and yet are almost universally agreed upon by those who are not pathological in some way (defficient).

[@leebennett4117]

By Evil you Mean things God Doesn't like,Sorry Sonny there where moral Systems in Place a long time Before some Romans Nailed an Uppity Jew to a cross try again, Beauty is Subjective

[@brando3342]

@@leebennett4117 Nice mockery, completely original.

[@leebennett4117]

@@brando3342 The Idea of Evil existed long Before your God,It may have not been YOUR Gods idea of Evil but it existed,As for Mockery yes I will Mock ideas I see as harmful morning noon and night

[@wardhuckabay8262]

If beauty is objective, then something had to make it objective... and luckily, it was the God that I conveniently and currently believe in. Biggest Whodunit ever!

[@MrGodofcar]

Beauty proves god (which god by the way!?)? Well, then ugliness proves no god or the god beauty supposedly proves.

[@He.knows.nothing]

My existence proves that god does not exist... :(

[@TheDemolition2000]

Well no, what they’re it ultimately boils down to the “objective standard-ness” of beauty-immaterial, spaceless and timeless entities existing beyond the person. So the opposite end would be that of no “objective standard-ness” of beauty; purely subjective.

[@MrGodofcar]

@@TheDemolition2000 What? Are you saying beauty is transcendental? No, it is simply subjective concept made up by the brain.

[@He.knows.nothing]

@@TheDemolition2000 you ever heard "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Lol beauty has been definitively linked to physique and symmetry as a result of evolution by sexual selection

[@TheDemolition2000]

MrGodofcars **I** was not stating that beauty is objective. I believe that it is a mental representation. I was responding to the guy above me saying that the “opposite” of being objectively ugly would imply no God. So I corrected that to say that it would actually imply God. But pure subjectivism would not imply God.

[@stephenrice2063]

The best part of this (for me) was the plug for CCA--the "Pascal's Wager" playlist is the sort of thing I've been looking for. I've been using your "three proofs" video lately for atheists who keep telling me that there's no evidence for God, and given its brevity I will likely continue to do so. But the Improved Pascal's Wager playlist, though longer and narrower, is also more comprehensive.

[@cosmosreality222]

“Beauty points to god”. No it does not. To say, things look beautiful, this suggests that a God exists who created humans in his image and then sacrificed his son for a sin that he knew humans would commit anyway and punish all who don’t believe in an unconvincing and likely non-historical account of his son, is completely nonsensical

[@kylexinye1990]

Cosmos Reality I think the idea is that this would be an argument for mere theism rather than for YHWH specifically. I don't think anyone would try to make the argument that beauty points necessarily to the Christian God, but definitely it points to a theistic account of the universe.

[@apracity7672]

this isn't an argument for Christianity, only for the existence of God. Secondly, people don't go to Hell for "not believing", people go to Hell for the sins they have committed, big difference.

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

Argument from beauty? Have you guys lost your minds? Going back to what I said, Cameron, the content you present on your channel is stearing people away from critical thinking.

[@les2997]

Te idea of an evil god is incoherent because an evil being cannot be supreme.

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

@@les2997 Now demonstrate that there is a "supreme being"..

[@les2997]

I smell a troll

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

@Gabe Norman Because I enjoy the intellectual exercise of addressing fallacious arguments, and Cameron present a whole lot of 'em!

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

@@les2997 I smell another theist who can't demonstrate the existence their imaginary friend.

[@colinguyan9704]

The argument that morality is objective is weak, flawed and for me not convincing, but it's an argument. This is total BS, beauty can't be objective in any way and the stupid symantec arguing about terms is irrelevant. Yes you can't say that this epitomises gaudiness, and the reason you can't is because it's subjective. Basically your first point for objective beauty totally proves your wrong. Cameron you have to stop saying "my goal with this channel is to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief" if you are going to keep pushing these ridiculous ideas.

[@namapalsu2364]

Beauty CAN be objective. Just because at some level beauty is subjective it doesn't mean that at all level, or at most level, beauty are not objective. Only moron thinks that Rossie O'Donnel is prettier than Taylor Swift.

[@colinguyan9704]

@@namapalsu2364 Well in certain cultures fat girls are pretty and skinny are considered ugly and unhealthy. So you think people from other cultures are morons? Well that sounds christian at least.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@colinguyan9704 exceptions does not make the rule. In any case, your example would only be valid if that group of people are shown both pictures and unanimously declare that the hideous O'Donnell is prettier. Let's be real here. Honestly, no one would disagree that at one point all will unanimously agree on whether something/one is beautiful or not. To see otherwise is being dishonest, and wrong.

[@boguslav9502]

@@colinguyan9704 Not actualyl exactly true, there is a difference where we see beauty (the fact that the entire world after interacting with western beauty gravitates towards it in their culture) and what a culture deems as fertile. You are confusing two categories here, fertility, and beauty. Both are obvious. Yet easy to miss. And are suprisingly objective across all cultures and people as evidenced by many psychological studies.

[@TheBrunarr]

Colin Guyan I like how you dont actually offer any arguments.

[@branchleader73]

I'm still not sure why similar creatures living similar lives wouldn't have similar esthetics or similar morals? There is no need for an objective anything to explain this.

[@Supvia]

I recently heard a story of a woman, living in a caste society, where people in a lower caste were worth less. The woman however always felt, that this was wrong. Where did she get that feeling from? All her life this was the standard she had been taught, there was no reason for her to doubt this. Or why do you know that racism is a bad thing? Who defines the value of people? Who decides if slaves or people with a different skin color are of the same value as you are? Isn’t it a sufficient reason to say: Well he is poor, therefore he can’t be as valuable as a person as me? Somehow, this feels wrong. And I think it feels wrong, because God thinks, even the lowest of the lowest are worth a million to him. There are plenty of examples in the bible, where He protects the poorest and the weakest and I think that is beautiful.

[@jacoblee5796]

What is with theists and the word objective!?

[@cget]

It's not really theists, but philosophers.

[@TheDemolition2000]

Something being objective or subjective can have drastically different meanings and implications when applied to the same things. So it is a crucial analysis step.

[@jacoblee5796]

​@@TheDemolition2000 Of course they have different meaning, they are different words. However, theists throw the word objective around WAY to much. They claim things are objective will never actually proving it. Like morals, for example.

[@TheDemolition2000]

Jacob Lee I do agree *to an extent* that stating something should be top-down, rather than bottom-up by simply presupposing, which is why I personally don’t like the moral argument or beauty argument. But this does swing the other way into the atheist and often agnostic camp by stating that things are subjective and are agent-dependent, societally-dependent, or an illusion, but I don’t think that you’ll disagree with that either.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

What is it with evolutionists and their obsession with proving they are animals? is it because they want to escape culpability? I think so

[@jeffphelps1355]

If u saw a painting of a sunset u would appreciate the beauty and give credit to the painter. When u see a actual sunset appreciate the beauty u would give credit to the Creator.

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

That's fallacious thinking, though. You're comparing the existence of a massive ball of plasma and radiation, and how we see it from Earth, to a painting. We know humans exist and they're capable of producing paintings. We can show this to be the case. We have not, however, substantiated the claim that a god exists. You don't get to just assert that a "creator did it", or is even a candidate explanation, until you can first demonstrate that a "creator" does exist.

[@jeffphelps1355]

Personally i think its a rationale statement but my rejection of anti theism is based on life origin . How does life come from non life?

[@jeffphelps1355]

No matter what material used paint or the combination of plasma and radiation they created something beautiful.

[@MattKCChiefsfan]

@@jeffphelps1355 "They".. meaning people.. Which we can show exist and can create the things. No god has been shown to exist. How does life come from non-life? The correct response to that question is "I don't know, but let's investigate so we can learn how." By asserting some god did it is fallacious until it is demonstrated that a god exists and is a candidate explanation. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[@jeffphelps1355]

I never met Rembrandt, i know he excist through his art. Or i guess i could be skeptical about his art and say they are a product of natural processes. Since we do not know how life came into a being without a mind behind it God is very much in the race. Saying there is no evidence for God without giving me an alternate answer to our origin i find confusing