Beauty vs. God

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Slight thought experiment of mine:

If we assume all aspects of the Christian God are true, then we must also assume that nothing is higher than God, warranting something to be more adorned or praised than Him. If there is nothing higher than Him to be praised, this means all things are below him in their being praise worthy. What this then means is that God cannot praise or exalt anything other than Himself over Himself, lest he commit idolatry.

What this also must mean is that God, being the most praise worthy, must exhibit the highest magnitude of all things which would warrant praise. Be it moral worth, intellect, or beauty. As we are assuming all things to be true of Him, He most certainly has the highest moral worth as He ordains which is perfect, as well as has the highest intellect as He created all things and therefore nothing could be greater than His intellect and it would need to supersede that which it had come from in existence.

Beauty, though, seems entirely different. We can choose to see beauty as objective or subjective, but what is most beautiful is certainly subjective to opinion. Also, God certainly is not beautiful in the same way that Niagara Falls is beautiful, or how a cliff face is beautiful. Each things are differently beautiful and between those differences we can stratify our interpretations of beauty. One can appreciate one style of beauty over another, and then within that particular style appreciate one instance of that style more than the other.

So while God must certainly be the most beautiful of His style, there are still multiple, near infinite other styles of beauty which cannot be universally exhibited by the God. What this means is that one could, hypothetically, appreciate another style of beauty more so than God’s style of beauty, making something else more worthy of praise in a particular area.

One could say that since all things come from Him, that those things which were created were originally from Him, so the truest form of beauty to that individual would be God as the object they appreciate most was formulated by Him. I would disagree. That would then be the glorification of the thought rather than the being God, Himself.

If something, anything, is ever appreciated as beautiful more highly than the God’s beauty, then God ceases to be the most praiseworthy thing in existence upon all possibilities of praise. This would then defy His nature. He can either cease to exist here or we may continue:

If we continue, then He must not create or conceptualize anything which would be able to be more beautiful than Himself in any shape, form, or idea. If we are granted free will, then this is most certainly impossible as the interpretation of beauty would be purely subjective. This would then mean that literally anything could be interpreted as more beautiful, and thus more praise worthy than the God. If we have no free will, then there is no praise to be given and thus no one is praise worthy as there is nothing to ascribe worth to anything. This would cause God to not be the most praise worthy, thus not the fulfill a key aspect in His nature, and would then cease to exist as we know Him.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
It's definitely not my best argument regarding His existence, but thought it was a cool idea to try and use beauty to achieve that end.

Pebble, something you still aren't getting. Faith is what you believe in, not what you see. It is not meant to be proven or disproven.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Pebble, something you still aren't getting. Faith is what you believe in, not what you see. It is not meant to be proven or disproven.

Oh I know. But we might as well see if the faith exhibited is grounded, however slightly, in logic. Or if it's not logical at all. Faith's existence is independent of logic, but logic still can show whether the faith is viable.

For example, I can have faith that the earth is flat. Science says it isn't. My faith of it being flat exists regardless, but the faith is illogical because of science.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Pebble, something you still aren't getting. Faith is what you believe in, not what you see. It is not meant to be proven or disproven.

i would argue that he get's such a concept rather well. In fact he probably understands it better than most given he has made 4 (give or take) disprovals of the christian God yet remains a christian.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Oh I know. But we might as well see if the faith exhibited is grounded, however slightly, in logic. Or if it's not logical at all. Faith's existence is independent of logic, but logic still can show whether the faith is viable.

For example, I can have faith that the earth is flat. Science says it isn't. My faith of it being flat exists regardless, but the faith is illogical because of science.

That reminds me of how popes saw science as a threat and executed anyone who proved them wrong. Example is the solar system being Sun centered and not Earth centered.
 

DeletedUser29066

Guest
That reminds me of how popes saw science as a threat and executed anyone who proved them wrong. Example is the solar system being Sun centered and not Earth centered.

Wait! You're saying the Earth revolves around the Sun? How long has this been going on, and why was I not consulted?

Seriously though, pebble, although it may not be one of your best arguments, I still like it. Even so, I agree with figtree, you either believe or you don't, no matter the arguments or the logic. Now I'm going outside to play with my DOG.
 
Top