I can't believe what he said in the beginning. "A sunset/valley is as beautiful (subjectively) as feces"? It's amazing how subjectivizing beauty leads to some crazy lines of reasoning. Just imagine somebody SERIOUSLY saying "this bloody car accident looks gorgeous" (or any horrendous scene which involves death), that would be so scary. I literally can't understand how you deal with this stuff. Props for the patience and good work!
@@DeconvertedManoh, you mean privation of beauty which reinforces the idea that beauty is objective. Of course there are disgusting things in life. If you look at my comment, I did not even try to argue for a first cause or whatever metaphysical foundation someone may propose. I just said that the idea of feces and sunsets/valleys being equally beautiful sounds weird. It's just my opinion.
@@DeconvertedMan maybe evil, divine hiddenness, and other kinds of causal explanations to the natural world would be evidence against a first cause. No one disputes that.
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia I think that "hiddenness" is the only thing that needs to be a fact to be skeptical about this things existence. Its playing hide and go seek? Nah I don't think so.
@@DeconvertedMan lol "hide and seek", that's a good one. I know divine hiddenness debates will never end, and there are defenses and objections to many forms of those types of arguments, but I understand what you mean.
Crime scene: we can infer that a crime took place due to the evidence but the Whodunnit may take quite a bit more evidence than what's available at the scene. Beauty is a subjective word but we can say that things evolved to be attractive to certain creatures. Just because a flower may have evolved to be attractive to a bee, and we (humans) also find it "beautiful" doesn't equate to evidence of a God. A pile of shite or a corpse is attractive to flies, or carpet beetles. As the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Is there some significant new factor that is added when we go from evaluating the beauty of something like a sunset to another human person? I think a lot of people's intuition that beauty is subjective comes more from the vast different opinions on whether certain people are uglier or prettier than from sunsets and flowers. Take the following scenarios: 1) Brad Pitt walks into a room. Pretty much everyone thinks he is attractive. He's just got an overwhelming presence of human beauty. It's hard to deny. 2) A woman who weighs over 170 lbs receives a lot of positive attention in the Deep South of the USA, but a lot of negative attention in East Asia. The poll numbers on whether she's pretty or not would be a stark contrast in each region. 3) An 80 year old man still claims that his 75 year old wife is beautiful after being married for 50 years. Many young men who know her would not make this same claim. It seems like something kinda subjective might be going on when you add in the factors of the culture/environment in different countries, unique romantic/sexual attractiveness preferences, things like love that would make you look past certain unfavorable traits (wrinkles, etc.), and other factors like these. Is this just an issue of beauty receptors being affected with objective beauty still being true? What are your thoughts?
These are good questions. I think that regarding humans, there is the potential factor of confusing sexual attraction with beauty. It is worth noting that there have been some studies which seem to indicate that certain features of beauty in humans are recognized across cultures, so I would be careful about using that as an example. Also, just in general, there are issues of confusing interest or fondness with an object with aesthetic beauty. Somebody might say something is beautiful because they find it interesting or think it does something well. For instance, somebody who likes chess might say of a famous game between two masters that it was "beautiful." When they say that, I don't think they mean that the pieces and board are beautiful in the same way that a dance or picture is. My inclination toward disagreement about beauty is similar to my disagreements about morality, which is that the grey areas don't undercut the black and white areas. People have reasonable disagreements about complicated issues like abortion or assisted suicide, but those disagreements don't undercut our reasons for thinking that what Hitler did is objectively wrong.
@@inphilosophersgarb8099 So you could say that, similar to someone in a certain culture being desensitized to the horrors of suicide, that someone failing to see beauty in a big, wrinkly goddess might not actually prove the subjectivity of that beauty. Like if someone's "moral recognizers" are deadened/faulty, so someone's "beauty recognizers" could be out of tune/faulty. The spectrum of reactions people are falling into is to be expected given a "less" beautiful object (like a blade of grass). But we would also expect an object with "more" beauty (ex: Brad Pitt, flower, sunset) to be yielding much more consistently positive results on the spectrum, pointing us toward the reality of objective beauty. Am I tracking or no?
@@CosmicSeptic1 Yes, I think you probably put it better than I did. One idea that comes up sometimes in these discussions is the idea that aesthetic taste is something that needs to be learned. Just as one might develop one's palate to enjoy finer foods, or one might grow in moral wisdom, one can grow in one's recognition of aesthetic facts.
Really interesting to see someone worship the child of confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity as “evidence” of invisible beings lol Novel video in that regard I guess.
Sigh. Probability raising. That's your problem right there. Using that """system""" you can make any conclusion SEEM to be "more possible" then any other. Also, how do you deduce what probability something has at the start? Zero? Why not negative numbers? How would you know what the probability is of anything in the first place? Flawed reasoning will lead to flawed conclusions. Your whole thing seems to be beauty = god in all your videos. But you have no proof OF or FOR god itself. No test to run ON god. Beauty is a subjective thing we humans hold in our brain due to biological evolution. Not good enough.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![[UA] Team Vitality проти NAVI | IEM Cologne 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wttO1zVRTC0/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel deserves more attention.
I can't believe what he said in the beginning. "A sunset/valley is as beautiful (subjectively) as feces"?
It's amazing how subjectivizing beauty leads to some crazy lines of reasoning.
Just imagine somebody SERIOUSLY saying "this bloody car accident looks gorgeous" (or any horrendous scene which involves death), that would be so scary.
I literally can't understand how you deal with this stuff. Props for the patience and good work!
wouldn't ugly things be proof of god as well?
what would NOT be proof of god?
@@DeconvertedManoh, you mean privation of beauty which reinforces the idea that beauty is objective.
Of course there are disgusting things in life.
If you look at my comment, I did not even try to argue for a first cause or whatever metaphysical foundation someone may propose. I just said that the idea of feces and sunsets/valleys being equally beautiful sounds weird. It's just my opinion.
@@DeconvertedMan maybe evil, divine hiddenness, and other kinds of causal explanations to the natural world would be evidence against a first cause.
No one disputes that.
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia I think that "hiddenness" is the only thing that needs to be a fact to be skeptical about this things existence. Its playing hide and go seek? Nah I don't think so.
@@DeconvertedMan lol "hide and seek", that's a good one. I know divine hiddenness debates will never end, and there are defenses and objections to many forms of those types of arguments, but I understand what you mean.
Crime scene: we can infer that a crime took place due to the evidence but the Whodunnit may take quite a bit more evidence than what's available at the scene.
Beauty is a subjective word but we can say that things evolved to be attractive to certain creatures. Just because a flower may have evolved to be attractive to a bee, and we (humans) also find it "beautiful" doesn't equate to evidence of a God. A pile of shite or a corpse is attractive to flies, or carpet beetles. As the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Is there some significant new factor that is added when we go from evaluating the beauty of something like a sunset to another human person?
I think a lot of people's intuition that beauty is subjective comes more from the vast different opinions on whether certain people are uglier or prettier than from sunsets and flowers. Take the following scenarios:
1) Brad Pitt walks into a room. Pretty much everyone thinks he is attractive. He's just got an overwhelming presence of human beauty. It's hard to deny.
2) A woman who weighs over 170 lbs receives a lot of positive attention in the Deep South of the USA, but a lot of negative attention in East Asia. The poll numbers on whether she's pretty or not would be a stark contrast in each region.
3) An 80 year old man still claims that his 75 year old wife is beautiful after being married for 50 years. Many young men who know her would not make this same claim.
It seems like something kinda subjective might be going on when you add in the factors of the culture/environment in different countries, unique romantic/sexual attractiveness preferences, things like love that would make you look past certain unfavorable traits (wrinkles, etc.), and other factors like these. Is this just an issue of beauty receptors being affected with objective beauty still being true? What are your thoughts?
These are good questions. I think that regarding humans, there is the potential factor of confusing sexual attraction with beauty. It is worth noting that there have been some studies which seem to indicate that certain features of beauty in humans are recognized across cultures, so I would be careful about using that as an example. Also, just in general, there are issues of confusing interest or fondness with an object with aesthetic beauty. Somebody might say something is beautiful because they find it interesting or think it does something well. For instance, somebody who likes chess might say of a famous game between two masters that it was "beautiful." When they say that, I don't think they mean that the pieces and board are beautiful in the same way that a dance or picture is. My inclination toward disagreement about beauty is similar to my disagreements about morality, which is that the grey areas don't undercut the black and white areas. People have reasonable disagreements about complicated issues like abortion or assisted suicide, but those disagreements don't undercut our reasons for thinking that what Hitler did is objectively wrong.
@@inphilosophersgarb8099 So you could say that, similar to someone in a certain culture being desensitized to the horrors of suicide, that someone failing to see beauty in a big, wrinkly goddess might not actually prove the subjectivity of that beauty. Like if someone's "moral recognizers" are deadened/faulty, so someone's "beauty recognizers" could be out of tune/faulty. The spectrum of reactions people are falling into is to be expected given a "less" beautiful object (like a blade of grass). But we would also expect an object with "more" beauty (ex: Brad Pitt, flower, sunset) to be yielding much more consistently positive results on the spectrum, pointing us toward the reality of objective beauty.
Am I tracking or no?
And then some evaluations of beauty kind of have irrelevant factors thrown in?
@@CosmicSeptic1 Yes, I think you probably put it better than I did. One idea that comes up sometimes in these discussions is the idea that aesthetic taste is something that needs to be learned. Just as one might develop one's palate to enjoy finer foods, or one might grow in moral wisdom, one can grow in one's recognition of aesthetic facts.
What a joke 🤣🤣 15:25
Really interesting to see someone worship the child of confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity as “evidence” of invisible beings lol
Novel video in that regard I guess.
Sigh. Probability raising. That's your problem right there. Using that """system""" you can make any conclusion SEEM to be "more possible" then any other. Also, how do you deduce what probability something has at the start? Zero? Why not negative numbers? How would you know what the probability is of anything in the first place? Flawed reasoning will lead to flawed conclusions. Your whole thing seems to be beauty = god in all your videos. But you have no proof OF or FOR god itself. No test to run ON god. Beauty is a subjective thing we humans hold in our brain due to biological evolution. Not good enough.