• Much like the Moral argument in that we need to ground objective beauty, and like the design argument but playing on the fact that nature causes awe and aesthetic satisfaction. And also like the ontological argument in that it may not be overly persuasive...
• P1: If objective beauty exists then it is very likely a designer exists
P2: Objective beauty exists
P2: Therefore God probably exists
• Beauty should be grounded in God otherwise it is just an illusion like morality, freewill, meaning, purpose, hope, and self-worth. We intuitively know and feel its reality. Another illusion to add to the atheist worldview.
• How can objective beauty be real when people disagree? That would seem to misunderstand the argument because the argument from objective morals doesn’t require everyone to agree on what’s beautiful. It relies on the fact that we do think things are beautiful. Nothing follows logically from disagreement. If you were being honest, you would have to concede that we at least speak as if beauty is a real property of things.
• We might find beauty in any number of things but commonly associated with nature, music, arts, literature. We might disagree but we intuitively ascribe awe and beauty. There is universal recognition of beauty, no one is arguing there is universal agreement on what IS beautiful.
• It makes the designer seem creative in that everyone finds something different beautiful, we’re not all the same and we each find beauty in different things. We can use each other’s disagreements on what’s beautiful to refine our standards and learn to appreciate things with new insights from others. To restate: Disagreement on beauty can help us gain new perspectives, broaden horizons, or throw away bad measures we use.
• Evolution alone doesn’t explain our captivation by apparent gratuitous beauty that has no survival value. In fact, we find many dangerous things beautiful. We find space, galaxies and blackholes beautiful.
• C.S Lewis from a psychoanalytic perspective explaining that our perception of beauty betrays an unconscious longing for a truly transcendent reality. “Our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, is no mere neurotic fantasy, but the truest index of our real situation.”
• Professor of philosophy Anthony O’Hear “From a Darwinian perspective, truth, goodness and beauty and our care for them are very hard to explain.” It makes more sense in a universe conceived by a benevolent creator who wanted to draw our attention to heaven.
• The great thinkers of history have always believed in 3 transcendentals: goodness, truth and beauty.
• If we set about to create something beautiful, it would require hard work and attention, yet when we walk outside its everywhere. We wouldn’t expect nature to be so beautiful without God.
• People may point to bad design and terrible things in the world. But all a bad design could possibly imply is a bad designer, not no designer! But there is a response to the objection of ugliness. Ugly things can be used to bring about beauty. Like an individual brick going into a great wall. The biblical God is big on taking lowly things and making them great. The ugliness of dying on the cross made the overall narrative of the world beautiful and meaningful. The overall narrative of our entire universe is immensely beautiful precisely because it includes the ugliness introduced by the fall.
• One of the best philosophers alive Alexander Pruss, defends this.
https://youtu.be/fZq_JNDWEbo https://youtu.be/_8SbCyYxcG4 https://youtu.be/VIKVtCFEM9Q
https://youtu.be/Jz7phjZa3EM https://youtu.be/VIKVtCFEM9Q Good video version https://youtu.be/9P6fIztB5k0
https://youtu.be/_8SbCyYxcG4 https://youtu.be/Jz7phjZa3EM
Comments