Undeniable Proof That God Exists – Physical Evidence That Jesus Existed

Undeniable Proof That God Exists – Physical Evidence That Jesus Existed

Whether evoked through art, literature, music or nature, our sense of beauty has been a motivating force for many human endeavors. The argument from beauty is that our desire and experience of beauty can only be explained through theism or naturalism; since naturalism provides no adequate explanation, theism is the best explanation.

From a theistic view, beauty is seen as a property grounded in God, the divine creator of all things. Whether it be found in a crimson sunset, a glittering night sky, a gleaming smile, a quintessential poem, or the sound of Mozart, the beauty we experience signifies a world imbued with meaning and value by God as the primeval author of beauty. From this view, our desire for beauty and the feelings evoked by its tantalizing allure, proceed from the reality that God is “the perfection of beauty” (Psalm 50:2) and we “were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16). It is therefore of no surprise that people use metaphors such as heavenly, sublime, angelic and divine, to describe numinous experiences of beauty. Although one could argue these metaphors are mere subjective qualities, from a psychoanalytic perspective, it can be argued they betray an unconscious longing for a true transcendent reality. As C.S. Lewis points out: “Our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off…is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation” (Lewis, 1949, p.42).

In contrast, naturalism provides no adequate explanation for our desire and experience of beauty. The cardinal difficulty with naturalism’s impersonal and closed world of elementary particles and physical laws is that it cannot account for the existence of consciousness, morality, truth and beauty. Besides, why should an impersonal and meaningless universe care about beauty? Although naturalists argue our basic aesthetic preferences evolved to enhance survival, no specific mechanism is given for the development of aesthetic faculties. It is as though naturalists use ‘evolution’ as a panacea – a get out of jail card, for all things naturalism cannot explain. Professor of philosophy, Anthony O’Hear rightly notes, “From a Darwinian perspective, truth, goodness, and beauty and our care for them are very hard to explain” (O’Hear, 1997, p.214). The conundrum naturalism faces is that beauty, much like morality, is irrelevant to natural selection, since it has no survival value.

In conclusion, theism constitutes an eminently more reasonable explanation for our desire, experience and rational understanding of beauty. When we see finite beauty as a derived quality grounded in God himself, it will draw our aesthetic attention to the infinite beauty of heaven. As F.R. Tennant wrote: “God reveals himself…in many ways; and some men enter his Temple by Gate Beautiful” (Tennant, 1956, p.93).

Leave a Reply
