Is beauty proof of God?

Beauty is the object of desire, desire is the essence love, and love binds together the entire creation. Every worthwhile thing humanity has ever done has been done in the name of beauty and love.

thank you for an actual non-reddit answer

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" answers your question. Beauty is subjective, does that mean the existence of God is subjective? I don't think most theists would accept that.

Beauty if subjective so no.

Is ugliness proof of no god?

This is unprovable.
Try and prove it, syllogism pls.
Broofs?
t. 14yr old sonic fan art enthusiast
Yes.
My man.
>epistemic denial is the first step in becoming a charlatan
not really, that is to say "people find things beautiful."
>Subjective
Proofs?
Anything you say I'll agree to and make it objective, if you deny that then you deny the term rather than its meaning, don't be arbitrary.
>theists
crawl back to your grave Christopher
ugliness is not the anti-thesis of beauty but the absence of it.

Perhaps beauty is the lack of ugliness.

No. It's proof of beauty.

>Perhaps beauty is the lack of ugliness.
No. This can not be for beauty for is a tangible harmony which can be quantified and understand in basic mathematical terms, ugliness can not be.
Computers cant tune pianos, but they don't sound horrendous.

>ugliness is not the anti-thesis of beauty but the absence of it.
Actually, the antithesis of beauty is the absence of beauty, just like the anithesis of love is not hate, but indifference.

Why would it be? Because it gives you a fuzzy, warm feeling, like the concept of gods do?

But randomness is also beautiful. Beauty is completely subjective, the opposite of randomness is order.

Yes, how beaury can exist, if Aphrodite doesn't?! She is one who created beauty and love. Let's all praise her divine existence for such gifts for us, a mere mortals.

>ugliness can not be
Doesn't sound hard to quantify ugliness in sound.

> opposite of randomness is order
123456789 is as random as 258973265

It is evidence not proof.

There is no empirical evidence for God.

For that matter, there's no actual empirical evidence for anything else.

It's all based on assumptions about theories founded in assumptions and qualified with further assumptions. (inb4 someone tries to argue its not)

So stop giving so much of a shit about it. Believe what you want, and deal with the consequences.

Even better as nothingness cant be an appeal because its nebulous.
>random is beauty
Agreed, is it objective now?
>beauty is subjective
proofs?
>opposite of randomness is order
Nothing is truly random.
Its actually quite difficult.

> Nothing is truly random.
Nothing is most ordered state of nature.

>There is no empirical evidence for God.
The Bible.
>epistemic denial
stop it
>believe what you want
Now that's just flat out wrong...

How about you go on proving these claims and not contradiction yourself any further, hmm?

>Nothing is most ordered state of nature.
Explain.
But...thus everything is just varying degrees of order?

>Its actually quite difficult.
Why? I'm pretty sure the spectrum of discordant sounds that make you want to rip the speakers/headphones out is larger than the one that makes you feel nice.

> The Bible.
It's fictional evidence on par with books about Azathoth.

Nothing is most perfect state of existence. There is no contradiction in nothing, no mistakes, none can be taken from it to make it less that it is not.

> I'm pretty sure
What is your proof? Random sounds are basically white noice, not the best, but not exactly the *rip* the speakers headphones levels of bad. Basically majority of sounds are from okay to nice.

"White noise" and "okay" don't qualify for "beauty" either.

>but not exactly the *rip* the speakers headphones levels of bad. Basically majority of sounds are from okay to nice
Then I'll instead reverse what you're saying and claim that the majority of sounds range from okay to bad.

You can reverse, but it only means that bad sounds are quite difficult as most low effort i.e. the random ones would be just in okay range.

Depends on where on the spectrum of bad, less bad, neutral, less nice, nice the sounds are concentrated.

If the bulk of them is on "less bad", rather than on "neutral" or "less nice", then the claim that the majority of sounds range from okay to bad is still satisfied while beauty being less prevalent than ugliness.

is ugliness also proof of god ?

everything is proof of god, or nothing is

thinking you can find YHWH only in specific parts of creation is obvious nonsense

>Whatever I think is real freakin' neato is proof of God.
Yea, nah.

Beauty would more reflect god's nature than ugliness

>&Humanities
A fucking mistake.

Its pretentious LARPing Christians who watched the Nostradamus documentaries shilling and being melodramatic.

>is beauty proof of god?
are you fucking kidding me? Treating a subjective response to ones environment to definitive evidence of providence? Neck yourself

You are like a little child.

Prove me wrong. Beauty is subjective. Is the Bible not enough? Do you really have to nitpick every single detail in life until it affirms into "''''evidence'''''?

Everything is subjective. So what.

So your using subjectivity unique to the individual as broad, universal evidence for the most highly debated topic in history?

God exists, so any premise you used to conclude "therefore God exists" would be correct. Maybe not logically correct, but correct.

Distinguish between the "what" of beauty - its subjective definitions, its examples, how it registers in the brain - and the "that" of beauty - the fact of beauty as such. Any reasonable person would agree that beauty as a subjective quality exists.

You cant argue with LARPing ReligiousAnons.

Its an endless cycle of being contrarian under the premise "all things are evidence." The moment you present anything that goes against the religious narrative they result to namecalling if they haven't started spamming bias and self-referential bible quotes. Just dont even try.

No.

And secondly, what is 'beauty'? All individuals has different definitions of what they find to be 'beautiful'.

Lastly, this doesn't belong on Veeky Forums.

>b-but it's philosophy!

No it isn't. Take it to /r9k/ or /b/.

B-but THE BIBLE
but! [insert meme blog website with faith in the url]
Now I have you! [presents quotes from offending source material]

>what is aesthetics

fuckin mouthbreathers on this board man

found the childish namecaller

pottery

thats nonsense

And how do you know god's nature is "beauty"?

Maybe God is an ugly lovcratian motherfucker you ever thought about that?

>Lovecraft

Redditors, every time.

Since OUR human brain is able to identify the abstractions of beauty & ugliness (as eaesthetic and moral absolutes) it, at the very least, tells us that whoever/whatever guided OUR evolution enjoys both.

Forgot pic.

And you're telling me that every person on Earth appreciates the same aesthetic in the exact same way?

Get the fuck out of here, Christcuck.

Have you considered that your perception of beauty is significantly skewed by your biological impulses which could be non aligned with fundamental truth of the Universe?

Just take sodomites for example.

I do find Kiira Korpi very attractive.
T. Known Boss

in terms of biology beauty/attractiveness mainly has to do with how healthy things look

The fact that most people's aesthetic standards would agree a landscape or a sunset or whatever is beautiful is all that's important desu

No, the logic doesn't follow that because what you perceive as beautiful exists, god exists

Sure it does

No, it doesn't, it's a non-sequitur

Nope.

Beauty exists, what is responsible for beauty deserves to be called God

>it's your brain :^)

What's responsible for a brain that can perceive beauty deserves to be called God.

>it's evolution :^)

What is responsible for an evolutionary process in which beauty even figures deserves to be called God.

>It's physical laws :^)

What is responsible for physical laws that produce beauty deserves to be called God

>*melts down like a pleb faggot*

Beauty may be subjective, which doesn't mean it objectivly doesn't exist.

These things come by through natural means, bro, god is a conscious seemingly anthropomorphic supernatural being that operates outside of physical space supposedly. Nature is responsible for what you call beauty. You can't prove your god exists Scientifically so you have to presuppose it and make it responsible for things you think we don't understand

Nice strawman, by the way

The beauty of Greece elevated the Greeks. That's the secret to their greatness.

>Beauty isn't everything. It's the only thing

The secret to their greatness, was math, friend.

youtu.be/PvceKeHl0Sg

Yeah, no shit, it's the fact nature can self-organize into what can be perceived as beautiful that is God or is rooted in God. It's the fact of existence, not the technical details of the processes involved.

It is absolutely fucking insane how much trouble people have grasping this. Astounding.

Nice fedora tipping, denying ancient ones and everything.

I can't believe you fucked this up.

They wouldn't have been able to open their minds and do maths without beauty.

> that is God or is rooted in God.
Why would you deny that beauty is independent, fundamental force of the universe, that is beyond even God's domain?

It's other way around. Aesthetics is just subconsciously applied mathematics.

Because then he wouldn't be God, or then beauty by itself is God

> because then he wouldn't be God
Yes, he isn't. World is ruled by fundamental forces that are independent from each other not by single all encapsulating entity.

Maths gives beauty, beauty gives us the ability to understand maths.

Non-sequitur, bro

Also you're saying it 'self-organized' and was orginized at the same time? How does that make sense?

So every force exists in its own reality? You think unity has to be spatial, like everything has to be in smooshed together in one place or it isn't a whole? Fedoras are beyond autistic

They are functionally the same. Self-organization according to inherent laws which mysteriously emerged in such and such way, God being that which determined them to be this way

It's actually could be that beauty and mathematics both grounded on something even more greater, as the beauty of math contrary to classical one is the hidden value in most cases.

>God being that which determined them to be this way
How do you figure this?

God just being the name for what determined these laws in this way, since these laws or regularities of behavior or whatever you want to call them obviously exist

Reality is formed in the interaction of forces. There is no true spatial unity between them as it is really known that not anything can interact with anything in our world. We can't influence a past for example and our past can't influence everything in the world and so on. Why sould beauty be based on God as if it isn't self-sufficient force by itself.

And how do you figure that something "determined" these laws?

Yeah, and super-god is the name for a something that determined God himself in this way.

Time is an illusion, reality's laws are uniform and in this uniformity constitutes a whole. God is responsible for beauty because he is what makes possible a self-sufficient reality.

No, but the fact that there is any order at all seems highly suggestive to me. How can there be rules with no author? Isn't the fact that we can tell how things will react based on set specific regulations suggest that there is something greater and abstract tying them together? I don't know but in my opinion it is like looking at a pyramid and saying the stones could've just ended up laying next to each other for no reason and it's not proof of the existence of Egypt.

Poor and illogical analogy

Because they exist in one way as opposed to another.

>super-god

wow ebin

The source of what is explainable is not liable to being explained himself

Yes, they exist NATURALLY, without the NEED for a god

You're a fucking retard. What grounds something existing naturally we call God. Fuckin' A wake the fuck up and read -> comprehend, Jesus christ

The only proof of god is that life is meaningful.

No amount of logical argumentation or scientific evidence is going to prove the existence of any kind of deity, because that's not the point.

Uniformity is also an illusion, no two points space are same one. What makes reality possible is the interaction between agents, forces, etc. The world would be nothing without interactions between the various parts of it. The beauty is one of a contexts here, that self-sufficiently support existence.

Actually i heard from students of art that all human perception of beauty comes from human body, since that is the only thing that we have any biological need to perceive as beautiful. It is really hard to grasp your head around it, but its a fascinating concept once you do.

Why say there's a god if it doesn't NEED a god to exist the way it does? Occam's razor

Listen, you're getting hung up on my calling it God. God's just another name for the supreme principle, absolute reality, the eternal what-is, the unconditioned, whatever.