What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[bobzills]

No comment, so I’ll hammer home the point. Proof of God, if proof be needed.

youtube.com/watch?v=OY5Bg6Nk6Gc

“Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.” John Keats

This is a beautiful video. Thanks.
Does it prove that God exists? Well, where did this beautiful music come from If we are to believe the atheists, it comes from a dead rock, like everything else. It shows that man has a spiritual side which is not explained by evolution from a dead rock.

 

[liquidpele]

This is a beautiful video. Thanks.
Does it prove that God exists? Well, where did this beautiful music come from If we are to believe the atheists, it comes from a dead rock, like everything else. It shows that man has a spiritual side which is not explained by evolution from a dead rock.

Rocks are dead by definition. Music is created by many animals, including birds and humans.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Rocks are dead by definition. Music is created by many animals, including birds and humans. *

I think you missed his point? Evolution proceeded from inanimate matter. Why would inanimate matter produce over time by sheer accident and without purpose Mozart’s “Ave verum Corpus”?
:harp:

 

[liquidpele]

*Rocks are dead by definition. Music is created by many animals, including birds and humans. *

I think you missed his point? Evolution proceeded from inanimate matter. Why would inanimate matter produce over time by sheer accident and without purpose Mozart’s “Ave verum Corpus”?
:harp:

Ah, so the logic there is that something seen as complicated and beautiful must mean there is a creator?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Ah, so the logic there is that something seen as complicated and beautiful must mean there is a creator? *

I guess the atheist take on this would be that nature is playing an ugly trick on us, to fill us with so much awe and wonder at Someone that does not even exist?

Mozart knew better. :bowdown::harp:

 

[liquidpele]

*Ah, so the logic there is that something seen as complicated and beautiful must mean there is a creator? *

I guess the atheist take on this would be that nature is playing an ugly trick on us, to fill us with so much awe and wonder at Someone that does not even exist?

Mozart knew better. :bowdown::harp:

Methinks you should not presuppose what an atheist would think.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

Methinks you should not presuppose what an atheist would think.

Methinks you should not presuppose what a religious person thinks.

Don’t we all have to put ourselves in each other’s shoes sooner or later?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

Methinks you should not presuppose what an atheist would think.

Methinks you should not presuppose what a religious person thinks.

Don’t we all have to put ourselves in each other’s shoes sooner or later?

I was not presupposing. You stated what you thought when you said

I guess the atheist take on this would be that nature is playing an ugly trick on us, to fill us with so much awe and wonder at Someone that does not even exist?

I’ve seen you put the words in the mouth of the collective “atheist” before, and it’s annoying. Try asking and stop being so presumptuous.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*I’ve seen you put the words in the mouth of the collective “atheist” before, and it’s annoying. **Try asking *and stop being so presumptuous.

If you’ll look more carefully at that post (#499), you’ll see there was a question mark at the end. :tsktsk:

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*I’ve seen you put the words in the mouth of the collective “atheist” before, and it’s annoying. **Try asking ***and stop being so presumptuous.

If you’ll look more carefully at that post (#499), you’ll see there was a question mark at the end. :tsktsk:

An opinion in the form of a question does not excuse the content of the sentence. Would you find it acceptable for me to go around saying “I guess Catholics believe Obama was the Antichrist**?**” or other sensationalist rubbish?

On the funny side, this reminds me of Talladega Nights when Ricky Bobby says “with all due respect” before insulting people and claims it’s in the Geneva Conventions

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of forever beating around the bush?

Is it the view of atheists that nature is playing an ugly trick on us, to fill us with so much awe and wonder at the prospect of Someone who does not even exist?

 

[bobzills]

It strains credibility to claim that the music of Mozart was produced by a dead rock. There is something else at work here, something spiritual and of a higher order.

 

[liquidpele]

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of forever beating around the bush?

Is it the view of atheists that nature is playing an ugly trick on us, to fill us with so much awe and wonder at the prospect of Someone who does not even exist?

When I created this thread, I stated I didn’t want to try and explain away things, and that wanted to hear other people’s opinions and logic regarding the subject. Thus I didn’t feel it was appropriate to go into detail about why I think it’s wrong.

Since I’ve made a big fuss over it though, I suppose I should answer. While I certainly cannot speak for everyone, I think claiming that Mozart’s work must prove there is a God is a bit ridiculous. By that logic, any complex thing that is defined by people as beautiful would meet that requirement… sunsets, rain on a tin roof, thunderstorms, the great barrier reef, etc. I think that complexity does not require design, and beauty is a classification provided by humans.

When I hear Mozart, look at fine artwork, or see the triumphs of man, I see the emotion and beauty that we can create. God is perhaps an inspiration for much of it, but I think in this sense God is just an idea in the person’s mind - still powerful and influential, but not quite what some believe Him to be. I also think people take a lot of inspiration for the beauty in the world around us, and when looking at such things I see a curious and wonderful world, but I don’t choose to ignore the parts that are ugly or decide that my classifications of beauty and ugly are meaningful beyond human thought and communication.

Mentioning rain on a tin roof made me think of this… I think you may like it. It’s a chorus simulating a thunderstorm… very neat

wimp.com/choirhands/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

When I hear Mozart, look at fine artwork, or see the triumphs of man, I see the emotion and beauty that we can create. God is perhaps an inspiration for much of it, but I think in this sense God is just an idea in the person’s mind - still powerful and influential, but not quite what some believe Him to be.

I am perplexed by this. It sounds as if you are sympathetic to the idea that God can inspire a sense of awe, yet you seem to deny that the thing called God exists. I have known fine works of art in tribute to the “sunsets, rain on a tin roof, thunderstorms, the great barrier reef, etc.” that you mention. These things understandably inspire artistic renderings because they exist and touch us deeply. But why is it that you think the one Thing that touches men most deeply, and inspires the greatest works of art, doesn’t even exist?

 

[bobzills]

While I certainly cannot speak for everyone, I think claiming that Mozart’s work must prove there is a God is a bit ridiculous.

I didn’t say it proved that the Christian God exists. I said that if we accept the beauty of the music of Mozart and as well the beauty of mathematical theorems, physics and more, then it strains credibility to believe that there is nothing in the universe besides dead rocks. How would a dead rock be able to come up with five different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem? That is meant to be a first step in the argument against the pure materialism of a universe of dead rocks. It is not the whole argument.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that complexity does not require design, and beauty is a classification provided by humans…
When I hear Mozart, look at fine artwork, or see the triumphs of man, I see the emotion and beauty that we can create.

On the one hand you seem to believe beauty is merely a human classification and on the other you regard it as something we create. This is rather confusing… or confused…
On what basis do we classify beauty? And do we create it according to our specifications?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

When I hear Mozart, look at fine artwork, or see the triumphs of man, I see the emotion and beauty that we can create. God is perhaps an inspiration for much of it, but I think in this sense God is just an idea in the person’s mind - still powerful and influential, but not quite what some believe Him to be.

I am perplexed by this. It sounds as if you are sympathetic to the idea that God can inspire a sense of awe, yet you seem to deny that the thing called God exists. I have known fine works of art in tribute to the “sunsets, rain on a tin roof, thunderstorms, the great barrier reef, etc.” that you mention. These things understandably inspire artistic renderings because they exist and touch us deeply. But why is it that you think the one Thing that touches men most deeply, and inspires the greatest works of art, doesn’t even exist?

But I think it does exist! I think God is a real thing, in a sense

As I stated earlier in this thread, I see God like I do Love. It’s an abstract concept that humans create. It’s real because it encourages us, inspires us, and it moves us to effect the world on it’s behalf. However, without us to keep the ideas around, the ideas woud not exist - they are tied to us in our memories and imaginations. Surely things like Love, Hate, Longing, Envy, and Sorrow have inspired works of art as well, yet these are not physical things. The “greatest” works of art are in the eye of the beholder. I like Picasso myself, mostly because it reminds me of my Mother’s work, fun and imaginative.

 

[liquidpele]

On the one hand you seem to believe beauty is merely a human classification and on the other you regard it as something we create. This is rather confusing… or confused…
On what basis do we classify beauty? And do we create it according to our specifications?

We can see something beautiful, like a sunset. We can also create something beautiful… like a painting of a sunset. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder… although there is strong consensus among many major themes. However, almost anything could be changed since some people will not find things beautiful if they correspond them with things they dislike (like bad memories due to past trauma or something), and vice versa. While I would find a trip through the jungle beautiful, a Vietnam Vet likely would not enjoy it as much

 

[bobzills]

However, almost anything could be changed

I don;t think you would be able to change the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry. And still, I find it difficult to understand how a dead rock could evolve into something which could write down five different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem.

 

[kesa82]

I have always thought the question was peculiar on its face.

What do you consider proof of the sun and moon? What?

Am I real? Do I actually exist? Proof ?
Again, I ask, What?