Atheists: Prove that beauty exists

[kalt]

Ah, but that is a different question, isn’t it?

No. The question was about proof the beauty exists. To prove that it’s something more than a subjective opinion or thought, you have to be able to convey “beauty” so that every reasonable person can use it and come to the same conclusion. You can define democracy and numbers so that reasonable people know what you’re talking about and can objectively use that information. You can’t do the same with beauty, I think. You can’t prove that beauty is something that exists outside the individual’s opinion. You can prove that people get pleasure from things that they think are beautiful, but you can’t prove a thing called beauty. Yet we all know that it exists.

In that sense, yes. But the same applies for democracy or perhaps - freedom. Surely you’ll find two persons on this planet who disagree on what democracy or freedom is or should be.

“Should be” is an opinion. Democracy is what it is. It is defineable. It’s expression is more or less to the letter of the definition, but it is defineable.

So “objective reality” is something commonly acceptable by reason or by proving or by measuring? Then God is clearly not objective reality as at least faith or a leap of it is required to accept Him. Though I won’t deny, that He is subjective reality for a lot of people, but that applies to other gods too. And to Beauty.

I agree. You can’t prove that God exists using the science we have today.

It doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. It’s merely saying that we can’t prove that He does.

It doesn’t bother me at all. I can’t prove to you that something I think is beautiful is beautiful, but I know that it is.

Think of the society that puts boards against their babies’ heads to get them to grow into an elongated slant toward the rear of the skull. To most of the world this is a disfigurement, but to them it is beautiful.

 

[kalt]

That’s because all the rubbish from back then is forgotten. As will be modern rubbish while the good stuff will still be remembered in years to come.

Beauty again in the eye of the beholder. Societies also have ideas of what beautiful is, even while individuals in the society disagree on how well an object fulfills the standard.

IMO, there aren’t many artists today who can paint like the masters. If there are, they are choosing not to do their best work.

But then it’s true that artists aren’t always appreciated by their own generation.

Wasn’t impressionism initially trashed?

I still prefer realism, so I’m really, really old school.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So “objective reality” is something commonly acceptable by reason or by proving or by measuring? Then God is clearly not objective reality as at least faith or a leap of it is required to accept Him. Though I won’t deny, that He is subjective reality for a lot of people, but that applies to other gods too. And to Beauty.

There is more proof that God exists than that Shroedinger’s cat is both dead and alive.

A first cause is necessary, and therefore, real.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Most atheists I’ve encountered tend to be “materialists”, denying the existence of that which they cannot prove with physical evidence (usually scientifically garnered).

So, can you prove that beauty exists? What proof and evidence do you have that such a thing that beauty exists? What scientific tests did you use to prove this, and where is your evidence and results that can be independently verified and reproduced?

how many drinks did you have before you imagined this would be a profound question to ask atheists, which would cause us to trip all over ourselves?

Beauty is subjective; therefore it’s not amenable to proving whether it exists or not. As the maxim goes, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

You might be eluding to Plato’s theory of forms (where you can see the theological concept of immutability taking shape). However, that was all Grecian babble in my opinion (and a philosophy of little more value than its weight in paper). Even Aristotle challenged this view (in Metaphysics). Anyway … not to detract into a philosophical discussion… but your question seems pretty silly to me (and not well thought out).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There is more proof that God exists than that Shroedinger’s cat is both dead and alive.

A first cause is necessary, and therefore, real.

the problem is you can’t really know that a first cause is necessary (or that there’s a linear nexus between any alleged “first causes” and today). The universe had a starting point, we think, but we also think reality may contain more than four dimensions. If that’s true your entire argument goes out the window.

I guess I would suggest that you shouldn’t make the same mistake as fundamentalists do (by pinning themselves down to opposing ideas like string, super-string, and M-theory). Isn’t this the same sort of error your church made during the Galileo affair (not to detract into discussing Galileo … please spare me that endless discussion). However, it is fallacious reasoning.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I agree. You can’t prove that God exists using the science we have today.

It doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. It’s merely saying that we can’t prove that He does.

With regard to proving whether god exists or not … a negative cannot be empirically shown to be true in the same way as a mathematical formula, a weight or measure, or something like the density of matter can be shown true (at least by the standards we ourselves apply to any scientific formulation).

However, a good circumstantial case can be made that indeed god does not exist. In law there are distinctions between direct evidence (e.g. eye witness testimony), physical evidence (like DNA evidence), and circumstantial evidence (he was seen holding the knife over the body, motive, means, modus operandi, etc.). However, most direct and physical evidence can be turned into circumstantial evidence, and in many cases the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is met by purely circumstantial evidence.

I believe I can make the case that god doesn’t exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, albeit not to a biased audience (such as you folks here on CAF). So it’s even fallacious to say we can’t prove god doesn’t exist … we can!

 

[ralphinal]

With regard to proving whether god exists or not … a negative cannot be empirically shown to be true in the same way as a mathematical formula, a weight or measure, or something like the density of matter can be shown true (at least by the standards we ourselves apply to any scientific formulation).

However, a good circumstantial case can be made that indeed god does not exist. In law there are distinctions between direct evidence (e.g. eye witness testimony), physical evidence (like DNA evidence), and circumstantial evidence (he was seen holding the knife over the body, motive, means, modus operandi, etc.). However, most direct and physical evidence can be turned into circumstantial evidence, and in many cases the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is met by purely circumstantial evidence.

I believe I can make the case that god doesn’t exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, albeit not to a biased audience (such as you folks here on CAF). So it’s even fallacious to say we can’t prove god doesn’t exist … we can!

Actually, i am not so sure that you can. Most of the ways that atheists attempt to do this work fine against fundamentalists and such but fall short against Catholic theology.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Actually, i am not so sure that you can. Most of the ways that atheists attempt to do this work fine against fundamentalists and such but fall short against Catholic theology.

I see no difference between fundamentalist or Catholic theology (insofar as making the argument that god doesn’t exist).

For instance, where is god? In our ancient past this god is said to have performed all sorts of profound things. He destroyed cities, flooded the earth, facilitated the escape of his chosen people from their masters, etc. Then came a man named Jesus, who is said to have risen from the dead, healed multitudes of people, extracted beastly spirits from people, and all sorts of other wild imaginative and wondrous feats.

However, I ask again where is god? Is it coincidence that just as mankind began analyzing natural phenomena through the lens of science … god has been AWOL from human history? Every world religion has a common thread, there’s always a profound reason why god refuses to show himself to us today.

How is any of this any different than Joseph Smith’s gold tablets in a hat trick? After the CC was shown wrong regarding the position of the earth within the universe (that it based on its literal interpretation of scripture) the church still survived, which some might attribute to divine providence. Yet how is this any different than JW’s continued existence to spite being wrong about the impending end of the earth on two separate occasions?

Today the CC might point to what it alleges to be miraculous healings even in our times. For instance there were 67 confirmed healings among the hundreds of thousands who visited Lourdes, France. Leaving aside that such a small number is probably a normal statistical occurrence, there is the question of the known relationship between psychological and physical health (though medical science still hasn’t quantified why).

Like all mysteries throughout time (whether it was earth quakes, solar eclipses, or whatever) religion has sought to explain what we lack an understanding of with musings of divine power. However, they’ve been continually proven wrong throughout history by science. Just as we eventually leaned the physical causes of earth quakes and eclipses, we will eventually understand the relationship between psychological and physical health.

However, religion has many tricks up its sleeve (and even when science proves that every single thing religion has ever attributed to divine power are really just explainable natural phenomena, they will probably still find a way to exist). One of their most useful tactics (and perhaps the most obstructive to world peace) is the “us against them” tactic. By instilling the idea that the world will always oppose you … it instills allegiance among your faithful. Every religion exploits that technique & it’s obviously quite effective.

If I’m quickly dismissed as being influenced by some sort of invisible devil … then you’ll never really open your mind up to what I’m saying. This is necessary, because if anyone took the time to become smart enough, and did in fact open their minds to all sides, religion would have a short future.

 

[ralphinal]

Sorry. You said that you could proove that God does not exist beyond a resonable doubt. You have not done so.

I see no difference between fundamentalist or Catholic theology (insofar as making the argument that god doesn’t exist).

Then you do not know either one.

For instance, where is god? In our ancient past this god is said to have performed all sorts of profound things. He destroyed cities, flooded the earth, facilitated the escape of his chosen people from their masters, etc. Then came a man named Jesus, who is said to have risen from the dead, healed multitudes of people, extracted beastly spirits from people, and all sorts of other wild imaginative and wondrous feats.

However, I ask again where is god? Is it coincidence that just as mankind began analyzing natural phenomena through the lens of science … god has been AWOL from human history? Every world religion has a common thread, there’s always a profound reason why god refuses to show himself to us today.

There are several ways to answer this. The easiest is that absence does not proove non-existance. When you missed school, did you still exist?

But that is not really an answer. The Bible is the story of God seeking a relationship with man. Through Jesus Christ, that was acheived. Because of the type of relationship, there is no need for any of the other stuff anymore. God established his street cred with the Ancient Jews and that allows for Christianity to develop.

How is any of this any different than Joseph Smith’s gold tablets in a hat trick? After the CC was shown wrong regarding the position of the earth within the universe (that it based on its literal interpretation of scripture) the church still survived, which some might attribute to divine providence. Yet how is this any different than JW’s continued existence to spite being wrong about the impending end of the earth on two separate occasions?

Oh, you are leaving out a lot of reasons the LDS are wrong… Not even close to the same

Today the CC might point to what it alleges to be miraculous healings even in our times. For instance there were 67 confirmed healings among the hundreds of thousands who visited Lourdes, France. Leaving aside that such a small number is probably a normal statistical occurrence, there is the question of the known relationship between psychological and physical health (though medical science still hasn’t quantified why).

Until you have the why, it is a miracle. No matter how statistically small

Like all mysteries throughout time (whether it was earth quakes, solar eclipses, or whatever) religion has sought to explain what we lack an understanding of with musings of divine power. However, they’ve been continually proven wrong throughout history by science. Just as we eventually leaned the physical causes of earth quakes and eclipses, we will eventually understand the relationship between psychological and physical health.

But that does not proove that there is no God. All that prooves is a nature that is complex and fully formed

However, religion has many tricks up its sleeve (and even when science proves that every single thing religion has ever attributed to divine power are really just explainable natural phenomena, they will probably still find a way to exist). One of their most useful tactics (and perhaps the most obstructive to world peace) is the “us against them” tactic. By instilling the idea that the world will always oppose you … it instills allegiance among your faithful. Every religion exploits that technique & it’s obviously quite effective.

Just because you are paranoid it does not mean that everyone is not out to get you.

If I’m quickly dismissed as being influenced by some sort of invisible devil … then you’ll never really open your mind up to what I’m saying. This is necessary, because if anyone took the time to become smart enough, and did in fact open their minds to all sides, religion would have a short future.

Oh, so we are idiots for having faith? Only stupid people are CAtholics? Is that what you are saying? And we are closed minded bigots, too?

No, you are not influenced by the devil. He only attacks those who oppose him

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Sorry. You said that you could proove that God does not exist beyond a resonable doubt. You have not done so.

Then you do not know either one.

you missed my point … I wasn’t lunging into your quibbles with protestants. I was merely referring to proving the non-existence of god as framed by any religion (in that regard my arguments are applicable to all equally).

There are several ways to answer this. The easiest is that absence does not proove non-existance. When you missed school, did you still exist?

yeah but that’s not really my point. My proof is circumstantial (no denying it); but decisive all the same.

But that is not really an answer. The Bible is the story of God seeking a relationship with man. Through Jesus Christ, that was acheived. Because of the type of relationship, there is no need for any of the other stuff anymore. God established his street cred with the Ancient Jews and that allows for Christianity to develop.

all you’re doing here is summarizing the bible and saying it exists because it says it exists. Not an argument …

Oh, you are leaving out a lot of reasons the LDS are wrong… Not even close to the same

I guess you’re so stuck in your quibbles with those of other faiths you missed my point again. I have no interest in why LDS Mormons are wrong. I think you’re all wrong, in fact I know religion is fallacy. Therefore, why would I care about whether the CC is more or less right with regard to your interpretation of an ancient myth with no basis in fact (as compared to others who roughly share your view)?

Until you have the why, it is a miracle. No matter how statistically small

that is among the dumbest things I’ve ever heard? So you’re saying earth quakes were miracles until geologists figured out why they occur? How would you define earthquakes now that we’ve figured out why they happen?

There has never been a miracle in recorded history that has withstood rigorous scrutiny; and indeed there never has been any miracle in prerecorded history either. Just ancient fables and myths (like Zeus, Odin, Allah, and Jesus).

Just because you are paranoid it does not mean that everyone is not out to get you.

that’s funny coming from a religious man whose bible says the “world” is out to get you …

No, you are not influenced by the devil. He only attacks those who oppose him

No, there is no devil. No invisible demons who provoke men to violence. Just violent men who behave poorly.

 

[severntofall]

Most atheists I’ve encountered tend to be “materialists”, denying the existence of that which they cannot prove with physical evidence (usually scientifically garnered).

So, can you prove that beauty exists? What proof and evidence do you have that such a thing that beauty exists? What scientific tests did you use to prove this, and where is your evidence and results that can be independently verified and reproduced?

Beauty is a concept that varries from person to person and litterally does not exist outside of the eye of the beholder. Beauty exists in very much the same manner as do rights or justice as the understand of each can vary from person to person.

To argue that the existence of intellectual concepts somehow proves the existence of a god (which is ultimately what you think you’re doing) is IMO absurd.

 

[AnAtheist]

There is more proof that God exists than that Shroedinger’s cat is both dead and alive.

Schrödinger’s equation is very well proven. The cat story is more a parable than a scientific theory.

A first cause is necessary, and therefore, real.

Firstly uncaused events happen all the time, there are phenomena that violate Bell’s equation, but I grant you that there is some interpretation here (the Kopenhagen one of quantum mechanics to be precise). Secondly - and more important - even if that would be true, that proves a first cause but by far not the Christian god with all his other attributes. A necessary first cause may very well be a natural cause like some quantum fluctuation.

 

[AnAtheist]

To argue that the existence of intellectual concepts somehow proves the existence of a god (which is ultimately what you think you’re doing) is IMO absurd.

Actually I think this argument shows exactly what a god is: An intellectual concept.

 

[Thing]

the problem is you can’t really know that a first cause is necessary (or that there’s a linear nexus between any alleged “first causes” and today). The universe had a starting point, we think, but we also think reality may contain more than four dimensions. If that’s true your entire argument goes out the window.

I guess I would suggest that you shouldn’t make the same mistake as fundamentalists do (by pinning themselves down to opposing ideas like string, super-string, and M-theory). Isn’t this the same sort of error your church made during the Galileo affair (not to detract into discussing Galileo … please spare me that endless discussion). However, it is fallacious reasoning.

Multidimensions are an imaginary concept, they are not real and observed, they are imagined in an effort to make the maths work. But they concern things like gravitons, which must themselves have been created in that other great singular scientific event, the big bang, that point where everything began, remember.
Parallel universes I have heard are, necessary for atheistic theoretical science to explain how the heck the universe allows something like life as we know it to exist when the probabilities are so much against it. So someone dreams up muliverses, billions of parallel universes where nothing at all happens. This increases the odds of our universe and life happening. But those billions of dimensions are just imaginary.

 

[ralphinal]

you missed my point … I wasn’t lunging into your quibbles with protestants. I was merely referring to proving the non-existence of god as framed by any religion (in that regard my arguments are applicable to all equally).

then proove. You said that you could proove beyond a reasonable doubt.

yeah but that’s not really my point. My proof is circumstantial (no denying it); but decisive all the same.

You said that you could proove beyond a reasonable doubt.

all you’re doing here is summarizing the bible and saying it exists because it says it exists. Not an argument …

No, you wanted to know why God has not smote anyone in years. I am giving you the reason.

I guess you’re so stuck in your quibbles with those of other faiths you missed my point again. I have no interest in why LDS Mormons are wrong. I think you’re all wrong, in fact I know religion is fallacy. Therefore, why would I care about whether the CC is more or less right with regard to your interpretation of an ancient myth with no basis in fact (as compared to others who roughly share your view)?

Ah, another “know.” Can you PROOVE this one, too? You know these things without proof. That makes them a form of faith, doesn’t it?

that is among the dumbest things I’ve ever heard? So you’re saying earth quakes were miracles until geologists figured out why they occur? How would you define earthquakes now that we’ve figured out why they happen?

Again, you are missing the point. You said that there WERE medical changes that occured that we cannot explain. You claimed that we do not know “why.” That means that they are a miracle until the why is figured out. I am not saying that it ceases to be a miracle, or even ever was. I am saying that it is illogical to rule something out just because it challenges your paradigm.

There has never been a miracle in recorded history that has withstood rigorous scrutiny; and indeed there never has been any miracle in prerecorded history either. Just ancient fables and myths (like Zeus, Odin, Allah, and Jesus).

Really?

that’s funny coming from a religious man whose bible says the “world” is out to get you …

Again, it is lost on you. The fact that we hold that view does not make it wrong. Did you know that today, 1,000 babies will be killed in abortion and those that try to complain about it are called idiots and small minded and, yes, they are persicuted for being anti-abortion? See, the world calls evil good and good evil.

No, there is no devil. No invisible demons who provoke men to violence. Just violent men who behave poorly.

And those who ignore the fact that I called you out on calling Christians unintellegent and small minded. Let me post your insulting comments one more time

This is necessary, because if anyone took the time to become smart enough, and did in fact open their minds to all sides, religion would have a short future.

Again, why do you feel the need to insult anyone? And, by the way, there are people MUCH smarter than you who are Catholic.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Again, why do you feel the need to insult anyone? And, by the way, there are people MUCH smarter than you who are Catholic.

for example?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Multidimensions are an imaginary concept, they are not real and observed, they are imagined in an effort to make the maths work. But they concern things like gravitons, which must themselves have been created in that other great singular scientific event, the big bang, that point where everything began, remember.
Parallel universes I have heard are, necessary for atheistic theoretical science to explain how the heck the universe allows something like life as we know it to exist when the probabilities are so much against it. So someone dreams up muliverses, billions of parallel universes where nothing at all happens. This increases the odds of our universe and life happening. But those billions of dimensions are just imaginary.

multi-dimensional universes are not necessary for atheism, that’s an absurd statement. My guess is most atheists are not physicists (I myself am not … I’m a lawyer). That I have a decent grasp of physics is another thing (I went up to Physics & calculus 1 as an undergrad, and I took discrete math as well) … but I’m by no means a scientist or engineer.

At any rate my disbelief in your religion has little to do with physics (it’s mostly based on logic and empirically it has more to do with my training in law than physics). However, it’s equally absurd to infer that somehow science is bolstering the idea of a multi-dimensional universe in an erroneous attempt to make the math work, much less to bolster atheism. Nonsensical thinking like that is probably not a good resume builder.

 

[ralphinal]

for example?

Without knowing specific markers for intellegence that you have in mind, I would go with Popes John Paul II and Benidict XVI. Father Mitch Paqua also leaps to mind.

We have a priest in my diocese who was a MD and also PhD in genetics before he became a priest.

Trust me, the list is not that short. These are just the ones I could think of without taxing my little Catholic brain

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Without knowing specific markers for intellegence that you have in mind, I would go with Popes John Paul II and Benidict XVI. Father Mitch Paqua also leaps to mind.

We have a priest in my diocese who was a MD and also PhD in genetics before he became a priest.

Trust me, the list is not that short. These are just the ones I could think of without taxing my little Catholic brain

I don’t seriously believe all Catholics are stupid btw … if I inferred that I’m sure it was just my cynical brand of humor (that few outside of the inner rims of Brooklyn & Queens, downtown Manhattan, and the occasional Bostonian gets).

I’m sure all the men you mentioned were smart. However, at the same token they are wrong. I believe each of those men became convinced of Catholicism at a very young and impressionable age (before they had time to develop a broader foundation of knowledge) and then committed their lives to the church in an irretractable way. I’m sure they could have all been doctors had they set their minds to it; but they set their minds to religion for a variety of reasons (some due to very profound personal experiences with war and tyranny who probably viewed religion as an answer to the barbaric potential of man; and obviously a variety of other reasons).

Just because I’m convinced these men are wrong about religion doesn’t mean I disregard them as idiots or even that I view them as ill intentioned men. I’m very sure they’re all high caliber people; but I also think it’s important to challenge religion (because it would be a serious step backwards for any religion to gain the sort of control over humanity they once had in centuries gone by … and of course because it’s just not true).

 

[josie_L]

Multidimensions are an imaginary concept, they are not real and observed, they are imagined in an effort to make the maths work. But they concern things like gravitons, which must themselves have been created in that other great singular scientific event, the big bang, that point where everything began, remember.
Parallel universes I have heard are, necessary for atheistic theoretical science to explain how the heck the universe allows something like life as we know it to exist when the probabilities are so much against it. So someone dreams up muliverses, billions of parallel universes where nothing at all happens. This increases the odds of our universe and life happening. But those billions of dimensions are just imaginary.