Would God's Universe Be Beautiful if There Was No One There to Appreciate it?

[ricmat]

There was a discussion on another thread about studying nature to find beauty in God’s creation, and thereby stand more in awe of God, and give him glory and honor (which I totally agree with). But I got to thinking about it more and went down this rather strange path of questions:

• If a tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?
• If you threw a party, and no one came, was there really a party?
• If Michelangelo had been stranded on a desert island, and painted his “Sistene Chapel” scenes where no one would ever see them or find them, would they have been great art?

[Aside: there is a scientific viewpoint that says that reality doesn’t actually become real (it is only potentially real) until it is observed by an intelligent agent such as man…which also relates to the above questions.]

and finally…

• If God created the universe, but had not created man, would there be beauty in the universe? Does beauty need an observer to actually be real?

It is said that all creation sings forth the glory of God. Which is true. In general, the “natures” of creatures are such that they do God’s will (without question since they have no free-will). But if no one is there to see it and appreciate it, is it really there? Does it actually exist?

Alone amongst God’s material creatures, man has free will, and man has the capability to see beauty (assuming that we use our free-will to go in that direction). Would God have ever created such a universe without also intentionally creating a being to be able to hear the song of God’s glory in creation, or to see beauty in his works? Wouldn’t that be a rather pointless universe?

Rather than being just an accident of nature, as atheists (and it seems some Catholic theologians) contend, it seems that the universe was created for man, and it was only after the creation of man that the universe makes any sense at all.

If this all seems rather nutty (or incomprehensible) to you, I understand. But I wanted to write it down as best I could before I forgot. It’s meaningful to me

 

[centurionguard]

There was a discussion on another thread about studying nature to find beauty in God’s creation, and thereby stand more in awe of God, and give him glory and honor (which I totally agree with). But I got to thinking about it more and went down this rather strange path of questions:

• If a tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?
• If you threw a party, and no one came, was there really a party?
• If Michelangelo had been stranded on a desert island, and painted his “Sistene Chapel” scenes where no one would ever see them or find them, would they have been great art?

[Aside: there is a scientific viewpoint that says that reality doesn’t actually become real (it is only potentially real) until it is observed by an intelligent agent such as man…which also relates to the above questions.]

and finally…

• If God created the universe, but had not created man, would there be beauty in the universe? Does beauty need an observer to actually be real?

It is said that all creation sings forth the glory of God. Which is true. In general, the “natures” of creatures are such that they do God’s will (without question since they have no free-will). But if no one is there to see it and appreciate it, is it really there? Does it actually exist?

Alone amongst God’s material creatures, man has free will, and man has the capability to see beauty (assuming that we use our free-will to go in that direction). Would God have ever created such a universe without also intentionally creating a being to be able to hear the song of God’s glory in creation, or to see beauty in his works? Wouldn’t that be a rather pointless universe?

Rather than being just an accident of nature, as atheists (and it seems some Catholic theologians) contend, it seems that the universe was created for man, and it was only after the creation of man that the universe makes any sense at all.

If this all seems rather nutty (or incomprehensible) to you, I understand. But I wanted to write it down as best I could before I forgot. It’s meaningful to me

I can only answer this in a few short words. God Does Not Need Us Human Beings.
It Is Rather That We Humans Need God.

 

[puzzleannie]

yes God’s creation is beautiful simply by the fact that he created it, and in fact the bible assures us “it is good”. He himself is there to appreciate it, and can do so with infinite capability to do so, unlimited by our feeble senses and intellects.

 

[Ghoti]

That’s kind of like saying, is there really a God if there’s no one around to believe in Him.

 

[Ghoti]

On a related note:

If a man says something in the forest, and his wife isn’t around to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

[Ruthie]

I think the answer to your question is, yes, God’s creation would be beautiful in the absence of other observers. A “no” answers says that God Himself has no appreciation of beauty. I think one of the reasons He put us here is to appreciate the beauty He created.
…

[Aside: there is a scientific viewpoint that says that reality doesn’t actually become real (it is only potentially real) until it is observed by an intelligent agent such as man…which also relates to the above questions.]

That is not a scientific viewpoint. It is a philosophic one. And, as actuality, it is a silly one.

Were there no microbes before the microscope was invented? Was water just water, until the first chemist discovered molecules? When the tree falls in the woods, are no sound waves created unless there’s an ear or two nearby?

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[JDaniel]

There was a discussion on another thread about studying nature to find beauty in God’s creation, and thereby stand more in awe of God, and give him glory and honor (which I totally agree with). But I got to thinking about it more and went down this rather strange path of questions:

• If a tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?
• If you threw a party, and no one came, was there really a party?
• If Michelangelo had been stranded on a desert island, and painted his “Sistene Chapel” scenes where no one would ever see them or find them, would they have been great art?

[Aside: there is a scientific viewpoint that says that reality doesn’t actually become real (it is only potentially real) until it is observed by an intelligent agent such as man…which also relates to the above questions.]

and finally…

• If God created the universe, but had not created man, would there be beauty in the universe? Does beauty need an observer to actually be real?

It is said that all creation sings forth the glory of God. Which is true. In general, the “natures” of creatures are such that they do God’s will (without question since they have no free-will). But if no one is there to see it and appreciate it, is it really there? Does it actually exist?

Alone amongst God’s material creatures, man has free will, and man has the capability to see beauty (assuming that we use our free-will to go in that direction). Would God have ever created such a universe without also intentionally creating a being to be able to hear the song of God’s glory in creation, or to see beauty in his works? Wouldn’t that be a rather pointless universe?

Rather than being just an accident of nature, as atheists (and it seems some Catholic theologians) contend, it seems that the universe was created for man, and it was only after the creation of man that the universe makes any sense at all.

If this all seems rather nutty (or incomprehensible) to you, I understand. But I wanted to write it down as best I could before I forgot. It’s meaningful to me

Ricmat;

I must agree with the prevailing answers herein. However, I will say that I found your questions an impetus for one more interesting question: “considering how beautiful it is in this universe and in this life, can you imagine how much more beautiful the next “universe” and life will be?” Providing, of course . . .

jd

 

[reggieM]

Without the creation of human beings, the universe would not be “beautiful” in the human sense of that term. It would be beautiful in God’s sense of that term, or in some other beings’ idea of beautiful, but we don’t know how to speak about that because we can only know the human kind of beauty. Where the analogy with a painting by Michaelangelo is different, I think, is that the painting is intended to communicate something and if it was never found, it would lack something. God’s beauty, however, is an objective value – the supreme beauty. God gives his beauty and perfection to all things, and He posseses it in fullness Himself. So, beauty would exist in the supernatural world. But in the natural world of creation, it’s possible that none of the beings that inhabit the world are capable of appreciating beauty – except for human beings.

The fact that the universe is intelligible at all and that science “works” and that the universe can be evaluated with precision by mathematical formulas are similar to this same idea. It may be true that the human mind is the only organism in the universe that can understand aspects of the universe in a rational way.

Beauty is an immaterial quality that cannot be explained by science. Science does not create beautiful literature by reducing and analyzing language in its component parts. The same is true of true art – science can break apart but cannot create the harmony that God placed in the universe and which artists can emulate through inspiration and other non-material means.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

• If God created the universe, but had not created man, would there be beauty in the universe? Does beauty need an observer to actually be real?

The question behind the question: Would a world without sentient beings be beautiful to the one who created it?

Let’s check out the beginning and see:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

(Genesis 1)

Notice verse 31–everything was good until God made human beings (who could appreciate the beauty, or goodness, too). Only then was what God created very good. So, i’d say, no. A universe with no one to appreciate it but God alone would not be as beautiful as a universe with those who appreciate it, too. Makes sense, doesn’t it? When you see something beautiful, you just want to show someone else, don’t you? I do.

 

[ricmat]

I can only answer this in a few short words. God Does Not Need Us Human Beings.
It Is Rather That We Humans Need God.

Absolutely correct. I wasn’t trying to say that God needs us.

yes God’s creation is beautiful simply by the fact that he created it, and in fact the bible assures us “it is good”. He himself is there to appreciate it, and can do so with infinite capability to do so, unlimited by our feeble senses and intellects.

But whywould God create such a thing only for himself?

That’s kind of like saying, is there really a God if there’s no one around to believe in Him.

Well, that’s a totally different case!

On a related note:

If a man says something in the forest, and his wife isn’t around to hear him, is he still wrong?

I think the answer to your question is, yes, God’s creation would be beautiful in the absence of other observers. A “no” answers says that God Himself has no appreciation of beauty. I think one of the reasons He put us here is to appreciate the beauty He created.
…

I think that one of the reasons he created the universe is so we could appreciate it. It seems pointless to me that he would create a universe for his own enjoyment.

That is not a scientific viewpoint. It is a philosophic one. And, as actuality, it is a silly one.

It’s also a point of scientific inquiry. Double-slit experiment. Bell’s theorem. Etc.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat;

I must agree with the prevailing answers herein. However, I will say that I found your questions an impetus for one more interesting question: “considering how beautiful it is in this universe and in this life, can you imagine how much more beautiful the next “universe” and life will be?” Providing, of course . . .

jd

Yes.

And aren’t we here after all to practice for the afterlife. So many people go through this life not looking for, and not appreciating the beautiful works of creation. Perhaps God gives us a last minute choice of heaven or hell, and some souls have difficulty figuring out which is the beautiful one (heaven)! They see no beauty in life, and can’t spot the real thing later.

The question behind the question: Would a world without sentient beings be beautiful to the one who created it?

Let’s check out the beginning and see:

Notice verse 31–everything was good until God made human beings (who could appreciate the beauty, or goodness, too). Only then was what God created very good. So, i’d say, no. A universe with no one to appreciate it but God alone would not be as beautiful as a universe with those who appreciate it, too. Makes sense, doesn’t it? When you see something beautiful, you just want to show someone else, don’t you? I do.

That’s a really good observation that I hadn’t thought of, but which is similar to my thinking. I would just ask the question - would it even make sense for God to make a universe with no one (else) to appreciate it?

Thanks for bringing the scripture reference into this discussion.

 

[ricmat]

Without the creation of human beings, the universe would not be “beautiful” in the human sense of that term. It would be beautiful in God’s sense of that term, or in some other beings’ idea of beautiful, but we don’t know how to speak about that because we can only know the human kind of beauty. Where the analogy with a painting by Michaelangelo is different, I think, is that the painting is intended to communicate something and if it was never found, it would lack something. God’s beauty, however, is an objective value – the supreme beauty. God gives his beauty and perfection to all things, and He posseses it in fullness Himself. So, beauty would exist in the supernatural world. But in the natural world of creation, it’s possible that none of the beings that inhabit the world are capable of appreciating beauty – except for human beings.

I would further add that it is a quality of our image and likeness of God that we can appreciate any type of beauty (or love, or justice, etc.). And it is a quality of our free-will, the choice to behave differently than the nature God intended for us, that makes the choice to appreciate beauty much like choice to love or not.

The fact that the universe is intelligible at all and that science “works” and that the universe can be evaluated with precision by mathematical formulas are similar to this same idea. It may be true that the human mind is the only organism in the universe that can understand aspects of the universe in a rational way.

Yes, when I use the word beauty in referring to creation, I’m not just talking about colors and forms, but also beauty from a scientific and mathematical sense.

Beauty is an immaterial quality that cannot be explained by science. Science does not create beautiful literature by reducing and analyzing language in its component parts. The same is true of true art – science can break apart but cannot create the harmony that God placed in the universe and which artists can emulate through inspiration and other non-material means.

Agreed.

 

[ricmat]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses.

I can see that the way I titled the opening post was a bit different than the point I was trying to make / explore - so I’ll repeat my main thought below.

Alone amongst God’s material creatures, man has free will, and man has the capability to see beauty (assuming that we use our free-will to go in that direction). Would God have ever created such a universe without also intentionally creating a being to be able to hear the song of God’s glory in creation, or to see beauty in his works? Wouldn’t that be a rather pointless universe?

Rather than being just an accident of nature, as atheists (and it seems some Catholic theologians) contend, it seems that the universe was created for man, and it was only after the creation of man that the universe makes any sense at all.

 

[geometer]

*]If God created the universe, but had not created man, would there be beauty in the universe? Does beauty need an observer to actually be real?

I’m easy, I say yes the world needs its observers. And, yes it would be beautiful without mankind.

Just look at what the bees have done with the flowers…

 

[ricmat]

I’m easy, I say yes the world needs its observers. And, yes it would be beautiful without mankind.

Just look at what the bees have done with the flowers…

If mankind didn’t exist, how could I look at what the bees have done with the flowers?

 

[geometer]

If mankind didn’t exist, how could I look at what the bees have done with the flowers?

The flowers are beautiful because the bees look at them and tend to them. The bees and flowers were waiting on the fifth day, beautiful already before Adam was created on the sixth day…

 

[ricmat]

The flowers are beautiful because the bees look at them and tend to them. The bees and flowers were waiting on the fifth day, beautiful already before Adam was created on the sixth day…

The bees look at the flowers but can’t see beauty. Beauty is a characteristic that can be perceived only by beings with intellect. So doesn’t it follow that the beauty of the flowers and the bees was not perceivable by anything in creation until man arrived?

 

[reggieM]

It’s a great point. Even if we say that beauty would exist, beauty would not really have any purpose if there were no human beings to appreciate it. It really serves its purpose for human beings. I think this is a major problem for materialist thinking. First of all, beauty is a spiritual/non-material quality. It cannot be measured or reduced in a scientific manner. And yet, we know that beauty exists. We could suspect that a survey of human beings in all parts of the world, of all education levels and background would show that 100% of the people have experienced something beautiful and every one would be able to say that they thought something was beautiful.
So, it is certain that beauty exists.
All of the spectacular beauty that we can experience on earth would have no purpose – no “audience” so to speak if there wasn’t humanity to appreciate it.
That does seem like a strong, intuitive argument that the earth and its beauty was made for human beings.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s a really good observation that I hadn’t thought of, but which is similar to my thinking. I would just ask the question - would it even make sense for God to make a universe with no one (else) to appreciate it?

Thanks for bringing the scripture reference into this discussion.

I’d say, no it would not make sense. My reasoning: Everything God does makes sense to Him. Everything He does not do is something that would not make sense to Him.

 

[Nino]

too bad you didnt forget it…this is old stuff…beauty is in the eyes of the beholder…a crippled kid all distorted is beautiful to his parents even if you dont see it…my painting of a little sick girl holding her teddy bear is very adorable…and have given it out to many people…not one ever saw anything remotely like you claim in your sophomoric thesis…tree falling down in the woods, of course it made a sound! I give talks in several of my daughters classes once a year…I teach age old values…(oops another smirk I am sure) regardless of the ‘hearing’ the teaching moment was there ,if they chose not to accept it so be it.not my fault if I presented it accurately. I tell people our economy is in such dreadful shape because our shelves are full of slave labor products from china…lets raise the tariffs again and thus give made in america workers and products a chance…if they dont listen…thats the way it goes…the truth is there for all to see. To make a joke out of ones Creator is to me,rather foolhardy…pardon me while I move to the other side of the room…on my shelf is a book titled: The Bible unmasked" by Joseph Lewis…a communist that also ridiculed the good books…it was published back in 1923…all of the various comments I have read here seem to have come out of that hate christianity book…mmm maybe its not out of print afterall.