Why Beauty is Powerful Evidence for God (Incredible Interview) 

Good one.

no, they are not. 8)

No. The bookcase is a must

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

@@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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Y4yBvvGi_2A.html

You live up to your name troll 👍

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

@@davidjulian8643 mockery is the best response

Its mental jerking off

Me too!

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

@@midlander4 nice 👍

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.

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

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

@@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! :)

It is solipsism

What a very astute statement !

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

Hooray! This one worked :D

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

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

@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?

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.

@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.

@Qwerty It depends on who made it. I haven't seen the show, but I'm familiar with the same science. Netflix, much like RU-vid, 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 RU-vid for "debunk (documentary name)" to find that.

Qwerty I am not an atheist.

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

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!

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.

@@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

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.

@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

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

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.

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

@@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.

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

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.

The puddle analogy has been debunked over and over

@@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.

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

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.

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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

@@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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Beauty is arguably objective. Despite tastes differing generally speaking we dont find most people putting a panoramic picture of the largest African landfill in the world right in their kitchen as art right? Or maybe we can find one guy who would do that just to disprove my point or hes into that but most people recognize that as ugly and unappealing.

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

It's not really theists, but philosophers.

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.

​@@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.

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.

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

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

@@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).

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

@@leebennett4117 Nice mockery, completely original.

@@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

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

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

I smell a troll

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

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

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.

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?

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

@@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.

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