What does it even mean to say that something is objectively beautiful? If beauty is a quality that evokes an aesthetic experience, then beauty can’t exist independently of that mental experience. If that’s the case, then beauty can’t be mind independent, and thus it cannot be objective
Do you believe the same to be true of morality? Or other constructs, like safety, health, etc.? Is there a difference between how you view those constructs and beauty, or is it very similar?
@@questionasker8791 Are you saying morality is objective? I would safety and health are objective and shouldn't be compared to subjective things like beauty and morality.
@@Navii-05 How can morality be objective when it constantly changes over time? How can morality be objective when its different between cultures and countries? How can morality be objective when its not always wrong to kill? How can morality be objective when its not always wrong to steal? Clearly morality is subjective, objective things don't change and aren't dependent on subjects or situations.
@@Navii-05 IP is a clown, but I'll watch his clown show and get back to you. I'm sure it's same old tired BS pushed by apologists. Morality is clearly subjective, it depends on situations and subjects. That's the definition of subjective!
What a lousy argument. Basically if you disagree with them it is assumed there is something wrong with you, not their pathetic points. But then again it is Capturing Christianity.
Then again.. you can't expain how beauty exists in a naturalistic - everything out of nothing - world view. Thats the thing.. you can mock, that is the only thing atheists seem to do.
This is a fantastic interview. I have waited for a long time for someone to come along with the right education to develop the argument from beauty. To me certain formulations of it are possibly the arguments to reach the popular generation and I suspect we would be surprised at how many people would gravitate towards God based on this argument. Well done.
God Bless and receive praise. Bro, thanks for the content on beauty. Look forward to more, Holy Spirit of Christ with you to do all things, and Glory to God
Hey Cameron, you asked about the setting and here’s my feedback: I am sitting in a beautiful pub watching this interview right now and I love how fresh/modern is your background, but at the same time how rich in tones and colors! And details, which are beautiful yet kind of unnatural. I get the vibe of Bilbo and Frodo in Rivendel sitting in his room in the night talking together about beauty, if you know... The setting fits for a video about beauty. I love it!!! But I think you should make a different beautiful setting for a next interview of such kind, because that would be kind of sad if this setting becomes a “one size fits all” thing, one setting for all topics. But you’re the master here. Thanks for your interview, appreciate it!
As an atheist, can I take the theists’ side and give it my best shot? 1. Certain qualities of beauty are experienced intersubjectively. 2. Certain qualities of beauty (such as natural phenomena that are experienced as beautiful, but are actually quite dangerous) are better explained by objective beauty, than the result of an evolutionary process (as it would make more sense to experience it as repulsive as that would increase your survival ability). 3. Objective beauty is better explained by theism than naturalism. Conclusion: theism better explains beauty than naturalism. What do you think? Where does this fail or succeed? I don’t agree with all of these, but this is about the argument I would give if I were a theist.
@verygoodusername name Thanks for your comment! I appreciate it, and I don’t disagree with anything you say. It is still fascinating to me that certain traits have survived or developed in us that appear (at least at the surface) negative for our survivability.
I wonder if Objective beauty could be easier to accept if everyone could strip themselves of their worldview, life experiences, and emotions. If you could evaluate something’s beauty from a purely clean and unbiased slate.
I wonder if the world will ever wake up and take the ESL English As A Second Language Off it’s Sexualized Linguistics Roster Of Teachings And Include What The Vatican Speaks That is Latin AKA Jesus Talk AKA Lawyer Protective AKA Going Greek AKA Medical Speak ✝️🇻🇦✝️
An artist who is an atheist. Visual art relates to music. So the reasons we like music are similar to the reason we like visual beauty/art. Pleasing art is a good use of the principals of art such as rhythm, contrast, movement, unity and others. No god is needed just evolution. For example we are naturally drawn to movement so art which has good use of movement is alluring. The video uses a low tone visual which is dramatic with the high contrast. There is some rhythm in the book shapes. If the video used more color unity and moved more emphasis in the correct location the video would even be more pleasing. My point is that art is an intellectual endeavor that uses our intrinsic biases. God is absolutely not needed.
What exactly is it the argument is trying to demonstrate? There seems to be a slight shift in focus from time to time even during this video. Is it the 'ability' to consider something beautiful, or the claim that things inherently have a quality to them that are more or less beautiful, objectively, compared to others?
I think the strength to this argument is that the objections to it are not very robust, i.e. subjectivism, evolutionary attraction. I do think the waekness is simply that people really repel at the idea that beauty is truly objective emotionally, and fail to really engage in the logical aspects.
The argument is interjecting beauty to imply there is a designer; it’s a sly way of inducing “intelligent design”. I’ve looked into many creationist judicial cases. Every decade or 2, they’ll come up with some new verbiage to mask what is obviously evident.
The argument is that it takes effort to produce "beauty". Beauty is not produced by accidentally spilling paint on an easel. No. The most beautiful works of art took time, patience and skill. Seeing as though, no human could possibly produce something as beautiful as a "golden sunset" or a flouring rose bush, why would we conclude that such complex forms of beauty came from a source that has no ability to think, was brought about by chance and exists just because it is the "luck of the draw".
@@shameisnotwelcomehere3069 nobody is arguing that a human made the sunset! Irrespective of this, as far as arguments go, the argument from beauty is definitely one of the weakest for God.
I actually do accept the objectivity of beauty, but I think it is a fact that is in no way related to the existence of God. This is way too much of a stretch.
I have the same sentiment as yours before. You can watch Dr. Pruss about this argument. It made me think about potency of this argument to the existence of God
The vast amount of beautiful art, music, architecture, literature, and even film inspired by Christianity argues well for Christianity (though Buddhism and Islam have inspired a lot of beautiful human creations as well). In contrast, our human appreciation for the beauty of nature is pretty problematic as an argument for theism, depending as always on how you choose to define "God" Don't we want a God who regards absolutely everything in his creation as beautiful, including people with physical deformities, tarantulas, and even the depressing Texas scrubland that was mentioned in the interview? And don't we want to see things with the "God's eyes"? Why do we all prefer to look at beautiful people rather than ugly people? Science says we're looking for "health markers": people with symmetrical features and clear skin will make better mates for us. It's a crude theory, but as far as I can tell theism has no theory at all about this. Surely God has no preference for "beautiful people" over the rest of us? :)
At first I disagreed with the idea that this was one of the best arguments or even a good argument. Thinking about after starting the video (not far in, I paused it), I no longer think it’s such a bad argument. Mainly because I think I have an idea of how it could go.
@@battlefrontlittlefield6145 I don't remember, why I changed my mind, but I do have an answer to help give an idea. I still don't think it's a bad argument. I will say that I don't think it proves God in any way, but it does give an interesting perspective. To see why it's not a bad argument, we'd have to first about what makes a bad argument. A good argument is one that makes the conclusion of the argument seem more plausible than not. A bad argument is one that does not achieve this, either not making a dent in belief, or making it seem more absurd. I think the argument does provide some reason think the conclusion is or might be more likely than not. Beauty is a subjective experience. What makes something beautiful may be objective in that there is criteria that you can judge the beauty of something by. Like a most perfect thing, which this can be an idea or something else. However, regardless of whether beauty is objective, it still suggests an immateriality of the individual. Basically showing that consciousness may not be, or only be, the result of physical process. This Our appreciation of the arts, beauty, is evidence that we are more than just machines. If we are more than just machines, this gives the possibility for God's existence. God is not a physical being, so with there potentially being a mind out there, since we didn't come from nothing and Earth didn't always exist, it's seems likely that there could be a mind not dependent on the physical. Which also means God is likely to exist, or seems likely to exist. All due to the feelings we sometimes get for our appreciation or reaction to things we find beautiful.
So much talk - so few arguments... "We walk around and see beauty - therefore God? No knowledge, no research - only anecdotes and very few premises before the conclusion. "I think...", "I don´t like...", "If they don´t think this way they must be damaged or not functioning properly". Objective beauty how do you connect that to "moral"? "best film" is not the same as "beautiful film"! "quality is not beauty"! Okay no arguments for "objective beauty" - let us assume there is and go from there??? Beauty (like tiger) is weird - maybe we have impulses! (speculations!) I got so tired of this lack of arguments that I left it after 45 minutes. Arguments are not "good" if you like them. They are good if they are connected to data and knowledge and are applicable to more than just what you like.
Try bring the speakers in thought adventure podcas or efdawah RU-vid channels contact them they will comme to your channel they will challenge christianity
The most beautiful photos of space are colorized. The most beautiful women are photoshopped, dressed in the latest fashion styles that change, with makeup styles that change. The most beautiful paintings usually involve evolutionarily desirable surroundings, water, greenery, animals. What about the argument from beautifully enticing candy & ice cream (& subsequent tooth rot)? The scents of some plants are beautifully enticing but lead insects to their deaths. Another plant’s scent is beautifully enticing to flies but makes four footed mammals flee in a stampede. On “starkly different” concepts of “beauty/the beautiful” in ancient iconography: “Overt inclusion of ancient art in IPIAO elicits a brief discussion of art history and the project’s interaction with it. The result is a sketch of contrasts between ancient and modern art with fundamental concepts such as beauty/The Beautiful purportedly differing starkly... “Among exegetes interested in iconography, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern (IPIAO) should become better known, especially as the project nears completion... Extant volumes of IPIAO consist of a sequential collection of iconographically based histories of religion (Religionsgeschichten) for periods ranging from the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age (vol. 1) to the Middle Bronze Age (vol. 2) to the Late Bronze Age (vol. 3). A forthcoming volume 4 will cover the Iron Age in two parts-part 1, Iron I; part 2, Iron II. In essence readers can expect a five-volume set.” -Review Silvia Schroer and Othmar Keel, IPIAO vols. 1-3, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2018, Eric J. P. Wagner The famed geologist, Cuvier categorized racial divisions according to his perception of the beauty or ugliness of their skulls and the quality of their civilizations. Cuvier claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian, the original race of mankind.
I’m a theist but guys, I’m sorry. This is a lousy argument. I feel like it relies so much, more than was let on in this interview, on whether or not “beauty” is objective. But how could one possibly know that things such as beauty, which require an observer to interpret what is being called beautiful, are objective? 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 wrong? 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 they be in an position to know that what they say is objective if, like me, they are trapped in an impermeable cell of subjectivity? Someone 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 and all that. I’m more into art that depicts landscapes I’ve seen. Part of what makes these things awesome to me is not their content, but that the artworks were produced by a human yet they look so similar to the original, which was not produced by a human. So I was saying that 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? I’m not sure if I’ve stated my point well and I’m sure I’ve made a mistake somewhere but at the same time, the argument from beauty seems a bit off somehow…
And calling it one of the best arguments for God… guys, 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. 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. 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 - ‘cause… how would _you_ know that everything is objectively beautiful?). I don’t think the argument from beauty is salvageable for as long as it asserts this, “[Object A] is beautiful.”
@@cleo-lazy There is scientific evidence of unbiased beauty in facial research. There are provable objective markers of facial attractiveness cross culturally.
Do we need the intermediate step of there being objective beauty, or can we just say that our subjective experience of beauty is rooted in the beauty of God himself? Ray Stevens published a hit song in 1970 called "Everything Is Beautiful." You'll want to watch the video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0a45z_HG3WU.html It says in part, "It's time to realize that beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder."
Why would it matter if naturalism/evolution had an explanation? Wouldn't it just be better to show that your explanation is correct, instead of saying that someone else can't explain it?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think objective beauty exists. Poor argument lol. It relies on experience so is no absent the human mind and therefore not objective.
Because it’s so beautiful when hurricanes/earthquakes/tornados/volcanos kill thousands of people therefore God right? At what point do you step out of the Christian bubble and actually analyze the content you are putting out there objectively? I just keep seeing people who are clearly highly educated but seem to be educated in Christian propaganda that is nowhere near convincing to someone who doesn’t already believe.
What is the point of your comment? Are you just making an irrational rant rooted in personal hostility? Do you really want to have a discussion on these issues? What is your point, or do you even have a point?
@@dooglitas The point to illustrate the obvious problems with these arguments, it’s as if they’re looking to find a way to fit God into anything. I could say Pizza is the most amazing food. Just thinking about the cow that provides the dairy, the little pig that became a pepperoni, the wheat that would have eventually combined with water, then the yeast that makes it rise, and the tomatoes that make the sauce, their existence is beautiful so this must mean a God exists. This is only taken seriously because people have already been convinced that God exists so they find ways to rationalize it because God has to be its creator.
@@grnblh5969 Your argument is irrational. Pizza is amazing for two reasons, God, who created the amazing ingredients exist, and the human being who put the ingredients together exist. Your analogy certainly does not negate any argument for the existence of God. Your argument is irrational. Multitudes of people (including thousands of atheists) have been convinced God exists because the EVIDENCE led them to that conclusion. Those people are ones who looked at the evidence HONESTLY and made a rational conclusion. You, on the other hand, probably have NOT looked at the evidence or, if you have, you have simply rejected it out of hand simply because you are in rebellion against God and hate the very idea of God's existence, and so you choose to NOT believe because you love your sin and want to continue being a sinner in rebellion. NEWS BULLETIN: You are mortal. You will die someday. You will meet God, and your irrational arguments will not save you at that point. Eternity is a very long time. BTW, you never answered any of my questions. Are you evading the truth?
@@dooglitas You’ve managed to prove my point in your response yet somehow it went right over your head. The reason this argument sounds convincing to you, is because you already believe God exists. You are asserting that God exists to have even created the ingredients, if I have no reason to believe your God exists then you still need to prove your God exists for it to make any sense. Then you go into making assumptions about other people and I to make it seem like you have actual evidence for your claims when all this did is show your dishonesty in making assumptions. Then you go into a sad version of an already sad argument (Pascal’s Wager) which again is only compelling if you already believe in God. NEWS BULLETIN: A weak God who regulated slavery rather than abolishing it, a twisted God who requires blood sacrifice to forgive you, a perverted God who cares so much about how people have sex yet is cool with incest, a psychopathic God who murders innocent babies and commands the murder of infants is not one I will ever worship again because he is clearly not what people claim he is. Your threats of his torture for eternity are literally as scary as me telling you that Santa is going to beat you with a bag of coal for being naughty.
If you want, we could use this definition..... beau·ty noun 1. a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight. If this is what you mean by Beauty, then as far as I can tell one of the reasons humans experience beauty is due to their senses.
@@drewdrake9130 its not the same to ask what do x mean about y and whats the meaning of y. X could have a way of thinking about y that not necessary its far of his meaning but it could have a bad interpretation of it and thats why we ask "what do you mean about X"
@@Navii-05 You say it's my choice whether I accept the gospels or not, but there's nothing that I believe to be true that I choose to believe to be true. Do you choose to accept the gospels as true, or have you been presented some type of evidence, therefore have become convinced, and have no choice but to accept it as true?
@@Navii-05 I don't understand, was that a, yes, you have been presented evidence and therefore have no choice but to believe it is true, or do you just choose to believe it to be true even though no evidence has been presented to you?
@@Navii-05 Basically you don't choose to believe it to be true you have become convinced and therefore have no choice Is this correct? Do you think someone else should believe it to be true without any evidence that they find convincing?
We see Gods amazing creativity in creation “even in a fallen sinful world that is decaying away.” Before the fall, God created everything perfect and beautiful working together in harmony. After the fall, brought forth pain/suffering and even death. It brought sin and evil and ugliness into what was once a perfect world. For the whole creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of Him who subjected it, in hopes that the whole creation would be set free from its bondage to decay, and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God! Repent, turn to Christ Jesus who satisfied in full the debt of sin for all who believe/love/trust in Him alone for Salvation that He died and rose from the dead thereby defeating death and sin once and for all so that we could be made in righteousness in the sight of God to enter into Gods righteous and most beautiful eternal Kingdom! No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has imagined what God has in store for those who love Him! God bless!
There's no good argument for god, to suggesst that it is hard to make a teapot therefore there must be a master designer that creates beautiful things like a human is misunderstanding the process. Do you think that every single daisy on your lawn has some entity in the background carefully designing it or do you think that the daisy is growing all by itself without some invisible entity painting it green, white and yellow or is that not just creating more complex questions. Hint, sometimes the answer isn't perhaps what you want it to be and maybe just maybe the answer is something that cretes simpler questions rather than something far more complex like creator oversee'ers like any particular god? The natural world is beautiful all by itself, no god required.
@@daneumurian5466 Sure but the cause doesn't have to be a deity and you need to be careful what you mean by a cause as imaginations will run wild. Also for all we know there may be particles that pop in and out of existence at the quantum level with no particular cause. Have you read a Universe from Nothing? That's a book I need to get still.
@@martinkerr1587 My friends at the local Freethought Society loaned me the book. The physics were beyond me, but I ran across a refutation of it by David Z. Albert, referred to in a friendly conversation between William Lane Craig and Alex O'Connor:ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eKkhSS8aDkM.html
Your use of the phrase "for all we know" tells me that you're exercising faith and speculation in the realm of the philosophy of science, not science itself. Dr. Craig addresses that realm by claiming that God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, for the origin of the universe, for its fine tuning, and for the existence of objective morality. He adds that we can know God personally thru Jesus.
@@Punjabi_dude What's correct about it? As far as I can tell this argument doesn't present any evidence for the existence of a God that rises above mere speculation. If you think it does, please explain to me where it does this
