Beauty as God

In Yesterday’s Blog Post, I asked if the fact that all creatures with brains and eyes have some innate and individual sense of beauty is evidence of God. For the most part, believers said yes or maybe, and non-believers asked what is wrong with me.

In fairness, I didn’t develop that question enough for it to make sense. I was operating on insufficient sleep. I’ll take another crack at it. You might be surprised how well this comes together. Or not.

If there is a God, I have hypothesized before that it could be the expression of a single and original universal law of nature so powerful that all the other rules of physics spring from it. And all the anthropomorphic qualities that believers often ascribe to God are only different descriptions of that one universal law. It would be fair, albeit imprecise language, to say this God of universal law is omnipotent and loving and the creator of everything.

I observed that people are attracted to particular mates based on individual concepts of beauty. But they are also attracted to certain styles of clothes, cars, music and so on. We see beauty in lots of things. And we observe that gravity and magnetism and other natural forces are some form of attraction. Every bit of reality is experiencing some form of attraction to some other bits of reality.

Human attraction feels entirely different from gravity. But remember that all the laws of physics seem entirely different from each other, but there has long been a belief they could all be explained or connected by a so-called unified field theory.

Consider how evolution explains both the human eye and a bird’s wing. Those two things seem completely unrelated to each other, but spring from the same underlying set of rules. As with that example, I am asking if the pervasiveness of our preferences for beauty springs from the same force as gravity and magnetism, to name just a few examples. All seem to be a related to attraction.

If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, then animals would not look for food, people would not procreate, and planets would not orbit. Even evolution springs from this most basic of forces. Without attraction, no creatures would produce offspring.

Attraction, which we humans usually interpret as beauty in our daily lives, is perhaps the most universal of all the laws. Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all? And if so, can one be forgiven for labeling it God?

Comments

[himself6]

Hmm,
they should rather join http://www.lookoftheyear.com
and perhaps earn some real money

:-)

[Vinod]

"Attraction, which we humans usually interpret as beauty in our daily lives, is perhaps the most universal of all the laws. Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all?"

Ok even if I grant you that what has it to do with god??? Seems pretty random to get god in there just to stir up something, no?

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark

Further to my comment that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out that this universe couldn't have gotten here by itself, and to your characterization of God as a 'capricious beard in the sky':

Darwin, you people's capricious beard on the ground, said himself in a letter be wrote:

"...the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God"

I'll go with Darwin on that one...

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark says:
"I
Don't
Have
To [prove evolution]
Neither
Does Anyone Else

So stop asking."

Mark, my 'capricious beard in the sky' says, 'OK, but don't ask me to believe evolution is not a load of unscientific rubbish, either.' And He did mention you need to fix your word wrap...Kay, Bye!

[Carl]

You're awesome, but this post is deceptive. You're not asking if beauty is god, or can be proof of god, or whatever. You're asking if god can be defined as beauty. Which it can, but by then you're using words and concepts so loosely that they become completely vague and unable to carry meaning. (They also become difficult to dispute, which may be why discussions of god often go in this direction)

[LegioNofZioN]

for Michael,
"That's a pretty big IF statement there. As far as I can tell faith causes more negatives"

its not a big If statement to many of us. If it works for you, if you and your family prosper through it, if the quality of your interactions with your parents and children are improved then the individual will stay, and if it does not the individual goes. It's the ultimate marketplace of ideas, and when it works for you, people stick with "it".

Faith in God and in particular Christian teaching brought my father from a third world Caribbean country to Canada. It kept my father (an amazingly good looking 65 yr old) with my mother despite his cultural differences that bred in him the desire to leave. From a Christian perspective he chose his oath to God and our family to keep our family together and to help bring his brothers and their families to Canada also. Faith is so intertwined in our lives and perspective that its positives greatly outweigh any negatives in our experience.

I do not for a second think everyone else is the same, at least as far as believers go. Faith inspires our charity inwardly and outwardly - it guides our movements so that when we are off the track others can help us see how far off the road we are. We aren't perfect, but we try to be, and that is the benefit of faith, the constant struggle within to be better than you are. Faith may not be your answer, but it is mine, and I have a lifetime of experience to prove it.

[Crawford]

Be still...

[Mark]

[Um...Dave? In your checkers program you imposed order (rules) on chaos. You acted like a god;
Posted by: Tammy]

So God is just a program.

God is

E=mc^2

or

g=Gm1m2/r^2

etc.

If that is all God is, then why is the Bible considered the word of God and not "Principia Mathematica"?

[Mark]

[On the contrary, it is you who should not require proof of me for my faith. Anyway, if you would follow your conscience instead of just your intellect, you might see the whole world differently, Spock.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

In short, "No, I don't have to".

No wonder you believe in a capricous Beard In The Sky.

I do not have to prove to YOU that evolution is true and that the theory of evolution is the best and closest explanation of how it happens. I do not have to prove that God doesn't do it.

I
Don't
Have
To
Neither does anyone else.

So stop asking.

[Michael]

"whats wrong with having faith in something if its positive ?"

That's a pretty big IF statement there. As far as I can tell faith causes more negatives.

[Dave Oblad]

For Tammy and Steven M.

I have proven on many previous posts to this Blog, that an infinite number of
universes do exist, without a Creator. Each can be just as grand and diverse
as this one we live in. Being a programmer, I have explored some of them on a
microscopic scale. But I have also created a few myself. For this reason, I must
AGREE that this universe could have been created by a superior intelligence.

I have always had the stance that this universe COULD have been created by a God.

Where I do draw the line is the ridiculous God described by the old scriptures.
I just don't see God as a petulant wrathful paranoid mass murderer. Sorry!
And I'm in good company too.. that's also what Jesus taught!

Now.. someday, not too long from now, the Church will have to concede Evolution
as it had to give up the Earth-Centric view. If the Church had any brains, it
would embrace evolution as the tool designed into the DNA by God, to allow it's
creations the ability to adapt to changing conditions in habitat and fellowship.

Now that's a smart God. The kind of God I can get behind.

Jesus was a great teacher and man. His greatest battle was with Church Dogma.
He surrendered his life to prove his point. That the church will kill to shut up
those that don't agree with it. The church is trying to survive but not willing
to evolve with everything else. The spin the church put on the crucifixion of
Jesus is still yet another ploy to absolve them of responsibility and divert
attention from the real truth, that they killed him because he rocked the boat.

As far as evolution goes.. Everything Evolves. I mean EVERYTHING! Cars were the
product of intelligent design, but do today's cars look like the Model-T or Stanley
Steamer? Clock's, language, tools, Pc's, software..
YOU NAME IT !!!.... ALL HAVE EVOLVED!
And so does life! Even the Church has evolved (but not fast enough for some).

And for Tammy.. My checker demo simply shows several principle's of Natural Law.
How a logical mechanism, without real intelligence, can bring Order from Chaos.
How a complex system will balance itself and how grouping together improves survival.

Some one will say that God designed Natural Law. Sorry... God is a product of
Natural Law. God knows it, I know it, and someday.. you will also know it.

I not really as big a Butt as I may sometimes sound.. I'm sure that when Jesus
taught against Church Dogma, that he had opposition that had a low opinion of
his teachings and person. His rampage against money exchangers in the temple
lends proof that He could be a Butt too, as seen by some...lol.

Best wishes to all.. From Dave :^)

[Tammy]

Um...Dave? In your checkers program you imposed order (rules) on chaos. You acted like a god; if you had not imposed rules, the checkers would still be randomly distributed, not organized. But you seem to think that proves there is no God. Something is wrong with your reasoning, there. :)

[Edwina Higgins]

Dear Author, You should read the philosophy, aesthetics and poetry of Friedrich Hoelderlin, and also his novel, 'Hyperion'. You would see that his thoughts are really rather like yours, or vice versa. Perhaps the fact that you have both thought along the same lines also demonstrates something.

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark says:
[...Scientists and rationalists will require proof of creationism or evolution, but you don't require proof.

So stop asking for it.]

Hi, Mark. Take your pick which of my two following answers you want to argue against, or you can argue against both if you like:

1) So called 'rationalists' are unfortunately defined by the fact they would never accept any proof of 'creationism', as to them 'creationism' is a form of blasphemy against what they call the age of reason. They will not even accept the blindingly obvious fact that all this couldn't have gotten here by itself. Why should I wear myself out producing 'proof' that would satisfy them, if they can't even grasp that fact - it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out...

2) The fact that you describe yourselves as 'scientists and rationalists' means that it is perfectly in order for anyone, whether your fellow 'scientists', Christian believers like me, or even Melanese frog worshippers, for that matter, to require proof from you. That is simply the standard you yourselves have set for everyone to examine your assertions. Especially if you lot are always suing us through the Supreme Court (Insane Clown Posse) so that only evolution, not 'creationism' (anything that doubts evolution) is allowed to be promoted as reasonable propositions in the classrooms of our children's schools.

On the contrary, it is you who should not require proof of me for my faith. Anyway, if you would follow your conscience instead of just your intellect, you might see the whole world differently, Spock.

[Becky]

Several people have mentioned Einstein, here is a longer quote:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man* can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there.

* or woman. This was before PC.

[LegioNofZioN]

you know what I don't get ... how is it people who don't believe in God talk about Him more than the people who do believe in God ... are some people trying to talk their way into disbelief ? whats wrong with having faith in something if its positive ? if it propels you personally through life in an upstanding position ? no one has to believe anything anyone else tells them. that is the world we live in. To what purpose do you attempt to debate the existance of God through abstract means ? Does anyone who participates actually learn something of which they were not previously aware, and now illuminated have changed their mind ? I thought not, no one will believe or disbelieve because of a few comments on a page .... believe what you will, do what you will, and when you are finally at your lowest point, near the brink, when nothing is worth living for, we will welcome you with open arms, in the brotherhood of those who follow and worship the lord I am that I am. None of us are ever so far gone that redemption is impossible. We count the days until more of you join us.

[Mark]

[Now, Soren, why should I be expected to prove creation? I was just disrespecting evolution, as it has no real proof, and unlike my faith, evolution purports to be science. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

Why? Because you're asking for proof of evolution.

If proof of creation isn't required by you, why is there need of proof of evolution?

So please prove creationism or accept that evolotion can be true without proof (just as, for you, creationism can be true without proof).

Scientists and rationalists will require proof of creationism or evolution, but you don't require proof.

So stop asking for it.

[Dave Oblad]

Hi Scott. You mentioned evolution of Eyes and Wings and you got a few bites.

Bruce states:
****
You mention the eye and the bird's wing as proof of non-directed evolution. You state that as a fact, without support. Those who challenge random evolution point to the same two things as evidence that they couldn't have occurred randomly in any reasonable timeframe.

How, for example, did the eye evolve? It just seems to have appeared, without simpler eye-type organs preceding it. How did color perception come into being? How did organs develop that could differentiate between very very tiny variations in frequencies of light?
****

Well, Bruce.. You obviously haven't done your homework. Not only has the EYE
evolved but EVERY SINGLE STEP in the process exists in the animal kingdom today!

Furthermore, calculations of how long it would take for an eye to evolve from
simple light sensitive skin, is well under one million years. Many animals had
well developed eyes long before they left the ocean and moved to land. Eyes didn't
evolve by random mutation, but by very slow gradual deviations from a norm. Those
simple subtle changes that granted the species better survival abilities gave them
an edge, that is then passed on to children. If only a tiny percent of a species
had this edge, you would see it dominate eventually, after hundreds of generations.

My suggestion is to do your homework before blindly accepting something you
heard, that simply sounds good and helps support your (weak) position.

I'll make a statement for you! "Anytime one imposes a rule on chaos, order arises."
Natural law is full of rules. What makes natural laws what they are is the simple
distinction that they are NOT manifestations of intelligent design.

Here is an example of natural law at work: You will need some computer skills or
a friend that has such skills.

Write a program that creates a resizable grid, say 8 by 8, like a checker board.
Resizable up to.. let's say.. 500 by 500.

Now fill this board with checkers of 3 types, red, blue and green, no empty spaces.
Use any decent random number generator to get a nice random color mix on the board.
This is Chaos!

Note that every square has eight neighbors and is occupied by one of three colors.
Now apply a rule: A color, without moving, will infect it's neighbors and change
them to it's color, starting in the top left corner, across, down, across, to the
lower right hand corner. If you want, allow the edges to blend with opposite edges.
In other words, the right side connects to the left side and top to bottom, allowing
greater freedom of infection. (or ingestion, take your pick...lol)

Now the rule: Red can only infect Blue, Blue can only infect Green and Green can
only infect Red. Effectively, this is creating a world with three species on it.
Each species has a single specific food and is in turn, food to a specific species.
Finally, create a graph showing population percentages for each full cycle.
If done correctly, the graph will start with each species (color) at 33.3 percent.

Now let it run.

Notice that on small grids, one species will wipe out and dominate the board fairly
quickly. Now run it with larger grids. At some point a new phenomenon will emerge.
It's called critical mass. The chaos will settle into permanent balance and the
graph will show 3 perfect sine waves, each with a perfect phase relationship to the
other two. Chaos has changed to Order once a specific critical mass is achieved.

Also note, that survivability is enhanced when clustered with your own kind.
(I hope you don't think these squares are smart enough to be racist.)

Your seeing one of the many aspects of evolution manifest itself right in front
of you!!!! Without intelligent design, but with some properties that might be
interpreted as intelligent design, thus giving rise to the false belief that some
God must have had a hand in such perfection.

This is a perfect example of natural law.

Best wishes Scott from Dave :^)

[FreeWilliam]

Lyle says; "And the whole premise is that we evolve as necessity. Do we need colour eyesight to survive, or the appreciation of beauty or music? No, it's there that we may enjoy life to it's full. An intelligent God would gift us with those, it would not take place by accident."

Yep "colour eyesight" or colour vision helps us to discriminate about which things are safe to eat and which things are not. That is a direct survival mechanism particularly in a nomadic hunter gatherer. That we have advanced to the point where we no longer need it (although we do still use it to assess things like 'is this ripe or will it give me a gut ache') and are now able to use those abilities to appreciate art and beauty is proof of the effectiveness of colour vision (alongside our many other developed traits).

[FreeWilliam]

@Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

fossilise is in fact the English spelling and is used by english speakers world wide, only americans replace 'ise' with 'ize'

apart from that.. good points ;-)

[EDB]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

[Steven McDaniel]

Soren says:
"These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen Burners. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record - is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like, "Our evidence didn't fossilise""(By the way that should be "Fossilize")
Please enlighten us of the proof of creation, Steven. Oh please let me. The earth, according to an early church pope is in fact, only 6000 years old and created on Oct. 14th at lunch time....."

Well Soren, and may I first of all offer an apology for not putting the slash through the 'o' in your name, as you seem to take issue with spelling mistakes. Being someone that doesn't agree with evolution, I of course am not conversant enough with these new fangled computers to slash my 'o's. Let me first enlighten you as to the existence of an island off of Europe called England, where 'fossilized' is spelled, 'fossilised'.
Now, Soren, why should I be expected to prove creation? I was just disrespecting evolution, as it has no real proof, and unlike my faith, evolution purports to be science. Have a nice day!

[Monica]

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
--Albert Einstein

It just felt relevant.

[Pandu]

Scott,

Do you know that the name "Krishna" primarily means "All-Attractive" in Sanskrit?

It also means "full of truth and bliss," and "blackish and very beautiful."

Krishna is God.

[Pandu]

Scott,

Do you know that the name "Krishna" primarily means "All-Attractive" in Sanskrit?

It also means "full of truth and bliss," and "blackish and very beautiful."

Krishna is God.

[Dave]

C.S. Lewis started out with a similar question in his book "Mere Christianity"

[Jen]

Life is choice. We all choose when we do and when we don't.

[Jen]

Life is choice. We all choose when we do and when we don't.

[Søren Aabye Kierkegaard]

"These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen Burners. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record - is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like, "Our evidence didn't fossilise""(By the way that should be "Fossilize")

Please enlighten us of the proof of creation, Steven. Oh please let me. The earth, according to an early church pope is in fact, only 6000 years old and created on Oct. 14th at lunch time. This is when the "super natural" "Theistic" being created all that was. This is the generally accepted theory of creation. Proof: The grand canyon is proof of the great flood, thus proving everything else.Oh and the only Dinosaurs to exist were Grindle from Beowulf (Yeah, I actually bore witness to that on TBN, It was late, and I needed a laugh)

Is it just me or does that sound greatly flawed. In that theory, it's basically saying "No screw Edwin Hubble, and Einstein right in their ears". We know the earth is not 6000 years old. And we do have an accurate geological record. Evolution has some proof, like physics, for creation. Evolution never once said "Screw god,he ain't real!" I mean, to this day some people still seriously believe the universe to be steady state, thus negating both gravity, and motion in some sense. That theory was put to bed by some people from bell labs with a radio telescope.

Why is it so hard to believe that the universe is not infinite, and has a point of creation? Or that, work with me here, that evolution is this great plan you speak of. The logic from creation has been "If one thing is wrong, we have to throw it out!" Thats not science, Stating something, and then have a mutual agreement does not make something true. We could take a vote on my gender right now, and no matter the out come, I'm sure I'm male. Just because a multitude of people don't like it, does not make it false.

[Sam]

I have no problem in believing in God if you define God to be attraction. "My cat is godded to catnip."

(Though I believe to biological attraction to be fully distinct from gravitational attraction.)

[dante]

without attraction there would be no offspring. this is incorrect, asexual reproduction was the predecessor to sexual reproduction. there are even 'higher' species that reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction has become dominant simply because it creates more diversity within a species allowing for evolution to act more quickly, and for speciation events to occur more frequently.

[Jeff]

If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, entropy would always be increasing.

[Saty]

The thing is, that there is no God. So if you like to speak about God, you can define it in any way you want...

[Steven McDaniel]

N L C Jhon says:
"..And boobs can only be work of God."

Well said, that man! And the Bible tells us to delight ourselves in our wife's breasts, by the way. Besides the fact that human breast milk contains antibodies specifically designed to protect the baby from disease, as well as nutrients necessary for the human infant. Moreover, boobs can be credited with producing the theory of evolution - the list goes on and on. 'kay, bye....

[Steven McDaniel]

OK, Scott, as you said, 'Consider how EVOLUTION explains both the human eye and a bird’s wing. Those two things seem completely unrelated to each other, but spring from the same underlying set of rules....'
If you don't mind, I'll consider how GOD explains them. It just makes more sense, scientifically. He also explains the laws of attraction: 'God is love.' However, you are mentioning God and science in the same paragraph, something which is forbidden by the Supreme Court in all the best schools, as it violates separation of Church and State, apparently.
Now...Far from chastely refusing to acknowledge miracles, evolutionists are the primary source of them. These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen Burners. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record - is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like, "Our evidence didn't fossilise". (To coin a phrase or two or three...)

[Andy]

Human emotions are fully explained for by existing physical laws. It's nothing more than electrical/chemical reactions in your brain- no fundamentally different than the reactions that cause your muscles to move. The reason we don't fully understand the details is a matter of complexity, but there's no evidence that the functioning of the human brain operates on in any fundamentally different manner than the rest of matter.

[Brant]

"If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, then animals would not look for food, people would not procreate, and planets would not orbit. Even evolution springs from this most basic of forces. Without attraction, no creatures would produce offspring.

Attraction, which we humans usually interpret as beauty in our daily lives, is perhaps the most universal of all the laws. Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all? And if so, can one be forgiven for labeling it God?"

You've basically restated the ancient Greek myth of Eros and the origin of the world, as elaborated by the Platonic School.

[titch the clown]

Seems a very white anglo saxon idea of God to me. No eating of own children or turning of self into a bull and raping all the women. Amazing what a bit of adequate healthcare, a comforatble lifestyle and a bit of law and order will make us feel is nothing but nonsense.

Die unbeleiver die! I will dash your babies heads upon the rocks! On second thoughts I might just go out and get another set of Simpsons videos on DVD. Blah, blah, blah, etc. etc.

[Roger]

"If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, then animals would not look for food, people would not procreate, and planets would not orbit. Even evolution springs from this most basic of forces. Without attraction, no creatures would produce offspring."

But most of the universe is empty space. I think that argues the opposite of what you are saying here

[Jay]

Have you ever read anything by Emanuel Swedenborg? While he would certainly characterize this phenomenon as the result of a human and loving God, Swedenborg would agree with you that there is a single, universal law of attraction (or divine love, as he calls it) that gives rise to all existence, including physical, moral and civil laws. Because attraction can only occur between multiple distinct, concrete entities, this law required the creation of a universe filled with entities that could manifest and reciprocate that attraction, or love. Regardless of personal beliefs, it sounds like you've both hit on a similar idea in this instance.

[Tom]

I am a little late with this comment I know, but I suggest your theory is flawed, as scientists have just recently pointed out that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. If the universe is expanding exponentially, then basically on a macro scale every bit of matter is moving away from all the other bits of matter. On a micro scale, say Earths solar system, matter is still attracting, but at some point all of the matter in this area will collide, and then the solitary chunk that remains will be left to speed to the edge of the universe alone. And all the while it will be growing farther and farther away from everything.

[Julie, writer Surefirewealth.com]

This is an interesting point you have here. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So that might possibly explain why other people have different ideas about God. But I'm just playing around with the idea here. What about God as love? Cars, as beautiful as some think they are, are man made after all.

[N L C Jhon]

There is a spanish saying which expresses the ancient knowing about the importance of attraction and its relation to the concept of work in physics, it says: "Tiran mas dos tetas que dos carretas", which can be translated to "The pull of two boobs is stronger than that of two charriots".

And boobs can only be work of God.

[Dan]

>>>>>>read me!<<<<<<
If your consciousness rationalizes decisions other parts of your brain have already made, then beauty is merely your consciousness rationalizing that other parts of your brain are making a choice.(see previous post topics by Scott Adams and links to the article regarding free will)

If a guy sees a beautiful naked woman, I think a more primitive part of his brain is telling him to mate with her, and his consciousness rationalizes this as beauty.

Other animals have the same primitive brain parts telling them to mate with a "beautiful" specimen of the opposite sex. But most other animals are not conscious so they have no higher brain rationalizing this attraction as beauty, it is simply an impulse that they act on.

And no, attraction or beauty has nothing to do with god. Organisms that can mix and match their DNA do better in the long run. This gives rise to male/female and the necessity of sexual attraction in animals. Plants do not have this kind of attraction.

I agree with previous posters that if you wanted to pick a universal law that represents god it should be the second law of thermodynamics.

[Nimrod]

Nah. Too many leaps in logic. The first leap was when you conflated all these different meanings of the word "attraction". The second was when you decided the examples you had were enough to identify a universal law. The third was when you put the God label on it just because it was something universal. This is like a game of hopscotch, there's so many leaps.

[Edwin]

What always amazes me, is that people state that the fact we are here, that humanity exists is all the proof required to beleive in God. We can't be the endresult of an extremely unlikely process that is extremely unlikely to have happened and we can't be the only planet where this one in a gazillion chance has happened in the entire universe, hence, there must be a God and there must be intelligent life elsewhere. One base law from which all others can be derived? There probably is such a law. Whether man will ever be able to either formulate or understand is an entirely different issue. The idea of beauty as attraction is not new. But what is beauty? What is attractive? 10,000 years ago a female was attractive when she had childbearing hips (nowadays called a cute butt) and a male was attractive when he had the ability to protect the female (broad shoulders). Has that much changed?

[Johnny Ouais]

CHALLENGE: Show how beauty created the big bang, and then you might have something important.

Posted by: Derek | February 29, 2008 at 04:39 PM

Talking about big bang and beauty, for me, the link is obvious.

About God, Scott, as a non believer, you'll never find it using your brain or hypothetical laws. Some other have found it using much more complicated ways non involving theories. Of course, those can't prove it to you, because you do not believe.

I have found it myself, but I obviously can't tell you how. You have to believe that I did.

[Sam Davis]

Nichiren Buddhism teaches that all phenomena spring from the underlying law or principle of the universe, expressed as Nam-myoho-renge-kyo (Devotion to the universal law of cause and effect through harmonious vibration).

All life is a manifestation of this principle; individual lives are manifestations that are affected by individual "karma" or the "life tendency" of the entity, a reflection of the extent to which the individual's life is in sync, or not, with this universal principle.

Among other things, this concept explains why there are good people who constantly meet misfortune while there are evil people who appear to get away with their misdeeds, although sooner or later that evil karma catches up with them.

Nichiren Buddhism contends that by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, an individual harmonizes his or her life more fully with the universal law and taps profound compassion, wisdom and courage. This literally "changes" karma by changing the life tendencies of the individual, providing a source of life wisdom not dependent on intellectualized strategy or the actions of others.

A lot more information is available at www.sgi-usa.org, the website of the SGI Nichiren Buddhist lay association.

[Noclue]

Lets see if I understand your logic:

A=b and c=d therefore a=d

Have I got it?

[argenbert]

mmmm too far of a shot. i like the idea of a primal law, but i need an extra spin.

mmmm nope, i don't have it.

[Neep]

[If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, then animals would not look for food, people would not procreate, and planets would not orbit.]

And so this, little Johny, is why we're shoving your unattractive ass out the door. The planets are liable to stop orbiting if we don't kick your ugly ass to the curb soon.

[Noclue]

Lets see if I understand your logic:

A=b and c=d therefore a=d

Have I got it?

[Alex]

Atraction, Repulsion...all manifestations of the same basic impulse: the aim of all things to last forever.

Atraction: when we search someone or something good for our life.

Repulsion: we try to left behind all things that could be negative, in every aspect of our life.

[BJUK]

Or in reverse?

?)suoigiler er'uoy fi liveD eht ro( livE noitcejer ekam dluow taht oS

[alexei]

ugh...you sound like that awful "the secret"

[RealityCalling]

Then why did some cavemen feel the need to develop advanced mathematics? The ant may not even consider us, much less define us as gods. They probably don't even have that concept. You're looking at things from much too high a level. You need to look at the energy level of things. Until you understand that, you can't even begin to understand the physical, which is only a by product of the energetic. Matter is energy and energy never dies, it just takes different forms.

[Dave]

I think you're confusing attraction with liking. The attraction that Newton spoke of is a tendency for two or more objects to move towards each other. The attraction that I feel for Jennifer Love Hewitt is just called attraction because I would like her heavenly body to move closer to mine. It could just as easily be called lust, and we wouldn't be having this (one-sided) conversation.
Hey, and by the way, why do I have to make all the running in this relationship?

[neopolitan]

Scott,

You're scaring me! Did you take the wrong colour pill this morning, or what?

Basically no "Big 3" religious person is going to want a god that doesn't 1. threaten to beat up people who are different, and 2. pay personal attention to their prayers.

Your beauty as god just doesn't qualify. You might as well have "odd looking rock as god" or "solar eclipse as god" or "my nostril hair as god".

Part of the the problem is that, while difficult to pin down, beauty does exist, as much as any other concept exists. That makes it difficult to equate with "god".

Note that I am willing to accept "beauty as invisible dragon, which lives under my bed, try to prove that he doesn't!" (By the way, my invisible dragon loves me, he told me he created the world -complete with geological and archeological evidence of prior existence- because he was bored one day about 53 years ago, he promises to eat non-believers who piss me off and also promises to let me live in heaven -somewhat disturbingly however, he wants me to die first. Annoyingly though, he doesn't like me looking at naked women who are not married to me and will only let me marry one at a time, so I was thinking of not believing in him anymore and becoming a Mormon.)

cheers,

neopolitan

BTW if this is all a precursor to you coming out of the closet as a Scientologist, I will be sorely disappointed.

[Guillermo]

You are smarter than that. Why a god should be related to attraction and not to repulsion? Physical forces interact in several ways, attraction is just one.
And if you want to find constants about living beings, why you center in wings or eyes? use DNA, or RNA, or enzymes. Please, next time do it better.

[Tormod]

I think that you should read "The blank slate" by Stephen Pinker. This is a book describing the human factor. What concepts that we are born with based on experiments with small children.

It makes a very good argument that we, when born, do have something "hardcoded".
Like we expect there to be objects in the world. We expect the objects to follow certain rules (like, them being there when you don't look at them, etc). This is done by rigging "magic tricks" for very small children and observing their responses.

Some of these objects represent "living responsive complex systems". We definitely have an evolutionary advantage in considering complex system, such as a deer, to have a mind of its own in order to devise a way to kill it. Or a tiger in order to avoid it. And as a social animal living in a group.

Mans tendency to project similar traits onto weather, seasons, crops, diseases, accidents, the sun, vegetation etc are sufficuently explained as mere biproducts of an advantageous trait.

[Anfauglir]

"...can one be forgiven for labeling it God?"

Label it "Cottage Cheese" if you like, the result will be the same - you will be attempting to apply a lable with a whole host of connotations to something that lacks most of them.

You describe natural processes and laws - so why not call them natural process and laws? Why the need to give an additional and misleading label?

Question: do you "worship" or pray to those natural laws? If not, why class them as a god?

[Instinctive Traveller]

Scott, gravity... there always was gravity. Even before Newton. He just happened to stumble upon it and recognize it or understand it, however you will, for what it was worth. Let's say that some day into the future, someone like Newton - someone who must put a formula to everything - might just stumble upon God. Do you think? I know it sounds all dumb, written down here like this. But the theory of gravity would have looked pretty much dumb when Newton went to town with it, huh? Is that a good train of thought or what?

[Bertram]

Some men fall in love with Paris Hilton, some men fall down elevator shafts. One theory fits all - fascinating. I am not falling in love with Paris Hilton, now all I got to do is build an anti-grav platform from that.

[Carlo]

dear Scott, after laughing my head off considering all of the weird connections you make between LAWS of physics and future in-LAWS, I suddenly realized that you are a certified hypnotist. This post reminds me of the way Char the Medium asks questions.

Char:Eeeehm is it a name with an A?
Victim: yes, yes, oh my God you must have contact with my great grandfather Abraham!

[Caledon]

That's just a linguistic trick - in other languages the word that is for sexual attraction is not the same word as for "attraction" in the gravity sense, and them being the same word is the only link.

Social conventions play a much larger part in attraction that anything else. There's that amazon tribe where all these Halle Berry looking women are walking around with the boobs out but unless she's got a neck that's a foot tall then they are just not that into her.

Fats attractive when everybody is starving, thin's attractive when everybody's fat, the only universal rule of attraction is that you want to hum what your mates want to hump.

[aiwn]

Hi Scott:
For once one of your philosotainment entries that I do like a lot - maybe because it contains more question marks than exclamation marks...
best, a.

[John]

Derek,
Attraction DID create the big bang...Things, collided...this is attraction...and what you say about repulsion...well this is the opposite of attraction, which, stick with me here...is the same. For example, in math, equations are the same for finding wealth or debt. It's the same thing, debt is just negative wealth. so repulsion is jus negative attraction. So everything is based on some level of attraction, or the lack there of, (-attraction) It is the same concept.
I think Scott has an excellent theory.

http://awritersblock.com

[Wil]

"Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all? And if so, can one be forgiven for labeling it God?"

Wouldn't it be less confusing to label it "attraction?" And leave the "God" label for mythical creatures, scripted in the image of humans, but with superpowers?

And another basic and original law is "repulsion." Centripedal force, electrostatic or magnetic repulsion, a tendency to avoid things that are not sufficiently like us.

You need both for things to work. Start with a universe of nothing but attraction, and soon we're all just crushed into one overcrowded singularity.

[Vincent]

I just think that the parallel between gravity and emotional/sexual attraction is not pertinent. They are just not related.

[William]

From a scientific stand-point the attractiveness of another human being is calculable in terms of a variety of factors, such as the person's facial features (symmetry indicating the absence of genetic flaws, etc), vocal tone (current research indicates that it may be linked to fertility), etc. Its a complex formula, and has yet to be fully defined, but my suspicion is that, as with most sociological phenomenon, about 50% of attraction will be calculable in terms of a formula.

The remaining 50% will probably be the result of environmental differences (for example, the general American preference for busty women), and even those large sociological factors could one day be explicable in terms of a formula, although a lot of personal information would probably be required, and after your visit to the 'Match-o-matic' you'd find your bank account emptied, your credit cards maxed out, and a Dogbert'esque consultant retiring on a privately owned island, tail wagging happily.

Of course this doesn't really address the issue of 'Love'. I am reasonably reliably informed that consuming large quantities of chocolate generates a chemically-induced state of bliss almost identical to love, so I posit this question.

Would you rather struggle through mountains of empirical data to discover the underlying formula that explains human attraction, and possibly provides more evidence for the existence of a unified theory of the universe ... or would you rather just sit home and eat large quantities of chocolate?

I know which one works for me ;)

[Cytohead]

Scott, you are a huge nut ball, but I love you.

[Bryan P]

That is dumber than snake mittens

[Joe Hope]

Ah, the weasel's definition of god. Very handy.

[Maurs]

My God, the pretentiometer is reading over 7.2 gigapretentiouness! We should probably evacuate.

[foto]

i dont like it

[Maja Leibovitz]

GOD...WHERE IS RITA'S POST FROM YESTERDAY???!!!! AUGH!!!

- Maja Leibovitz

The answer to everything you ever wanted to know was in my post yesterday (which hasn't appeared as of yet) so I guess you are pretty much screwed, Scotty Boy. And I really had the correct answer this time. You are so out of luck.

Can't answer today's post. My free will and God told me not to.

Rita Mae

[Joe Sciglitano]

This theory is pretty half-baked, and mostly plagiarised from Terence Mckenna, but have a read:

Why don't we bring Time into this "attraction" theory? It is a common conception that Time is being PUSHED forward from history into the future. There was the Big Bang and everything else happened as a result of that. That theory requires a God who precedes the Big Bang, or who IS the Big Bang. BUT, what if God is instead at the other end of the Time spectrum? What if Time is being PULLED, rather than PUSHED? At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was simple. Just a few electrons (or SOME tiny things) floating around in space. But as Time moves forward, the universe becomes more and more complex, and at an exponentially faster rate.

You postulate that attraction is a universal law. So then, what if God is "The Great Attractor at the End of Time"? Does this make sense? Think about it.

[Marge]

"Can one be forgiven for labeling it God?" Scott?? Where are you? Who wrote this post? Why are you talking like this? Yeah, we forgive you. Get some sleep or something.

[Tenelus]

Oh, how I always love your theories. You always seem to argue on the same lines as plato and aristotle, but there's always some point at which your arguments don't follow.
The positive part of your theory:
Since philosophy began, and the Greeks moved away from their multiple god's theory, the philosophers looked for a unified cause for everything. They believed that logic as we know it works in the same way in our minds as in the universe (or the cosmos as they called it). The cosmos was believed to be logical, so they searched for the principle that caused that. That principle is the same principle for love, goodness, truth and... beauty. in that sense, calling it god is OK, but we still need to know more about it to say we have proved God in the sense that monotheists believe he exists.

The problems:
I'll do it later.

[Michael]

The problem with labelling such abstract concepts as god is that you are using the term in an entirely different fashion to those in the established religions. Your derivation of god is not that of a sentient being, dabbling in human affairs and sending his (his? hers?) only son blah blah blah. You are describing what is in essence a unified theory of everything, as in a set of physical laws, then calling that god. Fine for us athiests. Einstein took that approach too. However, you then have to listen to the conventionally religious claim that Einstein believed in god - but they mean god in their teams i.e. the opposite of what Einstein (and by the sounds of it you too) was describing. It would help if people didn't use the g-word to mean entirely different things.

[P Ferry]

You're joking right? You took time to pose this question. You actually considered the question before you asked it?
I'm Blaggerfasted ( confused of confision ). This is perhaps the most ridiculous, lightweight, anthrocentric argument for god EVER.

[obiDonWan]

Why not? If that works for you and brings you a little closer to God, fine. If it's just you playing mind games...

[anonymous]

I think Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgement would be of relevance in this dicussion. He's concept of teleology deals with some of the same issues. Kierkegaard deals with some of the issues in Either/Or as well, but Kant really hits the nail on the head.

I won't explain all of his theory here as it is far too complex to be done in a few words; just point out that he has some interesting points.

[Avi]

feelings is not instinct. to accept God you must feel it.

[Chen]

This argument to me looks extremely similar to the argument that there must be a god since all the right traits that support life seem to 'come together' on planet Earth. Gravity is /r^2 instead of /r or /r^3; the moon is just the right distance away, we're not too far or too near to the sun, etc. The problem with this argument, and the argument you're espousing, is that it can be explained equally by god or by chance. And the fact that we're here debating about it doesn't give credence to either one of those choices. If Earth had been closer to the sun like Venus is... well, let's just say that Venusians aren't debating about god right now.

The main point, I guess, is this. Attraction is an essential part of life. You're arguing that it 'might' reflect the touch or point of view of some higher being. Let me, on the other hand, argue that lack-of-attraction has been bred out of everything living precisely because it is so essential for living things. A rat that doesn't have the drive to copulate with another rats is going to fall short very quickly of those that hump (literally) until they drop dead.

Now. Tell me how I'm wrong.

[Alex Andronov]

David Attenborough, natrualist and broadcaster, said recently that whenever he shows a really beautiful butterfly or bird on one of his nature programs he always gets letters complaining about why he doesn't credit God when he's describing them.

He said that he always found it interesting that nobody ever writes in asking him why he doesn't credit God when he's talking about Slugs or Bacteria.

In a form letter he replies asking the people why they are proud that God created a butterfly but don't congratulate God for creating the worms that burrow into peoples eyes causing blindness in Africa. He says he's never had a satisfactory answer to that question.

In a personal follow-up, I wonder why we are obsessed with attractiveness equalling good. Without bacteria we couldn't live, and yet you wouldn't catch me looking at a Bacteria pin up.

[Marklar]

You might enjoy a book called 'The Golden Ratio' or something similar, which is about phi, a number that turns up in nature and design a huge amount and is naturally pleasing. I've read it myself but I can't remember many specifics, it's rather too long for the subject.

[Someguy]

Mr. Adams, I'm gonna try to keep this short, impersonal and anonymous, so let's just say I'm a frequent reader of both the comic strip and your blog, and I love how the other readers get so passionate about something which is often obviously not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, I'd just like to know your point of view on this thing which has been in my mind for the last couple of weeks, concerning the upcoming presidential elections in your country and the struggle between all these guys who want the job.

and the question is

Do you think an alliance between the 2 major democrat candidates would be a good idea, one of them running for president, and the other for vice-president?

Would it be politically viable?

Would it increase the chances of the democrat party of winning the election? would it attract more voters, or would that move drag them away?

If so, who do you think would be the best choice for president and why?

and so many other questions that might come up from that scenario

anyway, since you have thousands of readers, there's a thought you might wanna bring to your audience, and who knows, you might get a smart answer if you plant them that question

Sincerely

some guy

[terry k]

Oh definitely, if I could attract anyone I would think there would have to be a G(g)od.

[Joe Gokin]

Cartooning gets you access to good pot. Check.

[Irving]

Ah yes, just what we need... an atheist in his fifties getting a boner from his Victoria's Secret catalog, and calling it "God," or worse, "that which binds the universe together."

God Help Us.

[lorenzo]

Yet, another comment that will be lost in the ocean. But, as someone already wrote before, I'll bite.
I think your question is not well posed. Let me explain: I'll jump all the usual definitions we all agree on matter, consciousness, free will. It all probably comes down to a few questions: what originated the Big Bang? And if one wants to dig deeper, we could ask why the laws of physics are shaped that way? Why the universal constants have such value, why are they "universal"?
From the basic laws of physics one could deduce the state of every atom in the universe, and their interactions, and thus deduce eventually complex bodies, evolution, up to the laws of the universe that regulate current planetary motion and such. Moreover, from analyzing the "atoms" in a complex structure operating in continuos time such as the brain, one could come up with a Universal definition of beauty (for "machines" at our level of complexity, of course), as a certain dynamical state of electrons organized in "neurons", et cetera.

The problem here - and the reason why I believe that your question is ill-posed, is that by the way the laws of physics are shaped, we'd have no way of knowing if things could work otherwise. We are within a system, and cannot see the system from outside. We cannot imagine a universe based on a different gravitational constant, because it would have no meaning for us. It does not exist, and if it exists we have no way of observing it - which is the same thing.

So, the question is not if there's a god, and if beauty is the representation of god. Given the right assumptions, one could prove that God is everywhere (sounds familiar?).
Without those assumptions, there's no question. There's no need to ask such a question, because there's no way of answering it. There's no absolute God as far as we can be concerned! And if there is, well, we cannot know.

This does not take anything away from beauty, or from the things we marvel at, or from a beautiful woman's butt. On the contrary - once we accept our limits, there are still a lot of things to explore, discover, and marvel at.
...the universe is so big. Too bad we cannot jump out and take a look at it, isn't it?

[quantum_flux]

God likes to molest religious believers.... why else would he want them down on their hands and knees?

[Andy Coulter]

Huh?

[John V]

Um, Plato already beat you to this one . . .

[sam bobly]

One cannot be forgiven for calling it 'God'. The term god has connotations attached to it of mainstream religion and praying. It is at best unintentionally misleading to term any underlying set of structure god because of these implications.

[Keith Wooly]

I think your last-but-one paragraph is a beautiful piece of writing. So I would trust any conclusion you might draw from it.

[Telanis]

Brilliant post, Scott. Quite thought-provoking.

[Terry Finley]

Words alone don't prove or disprove anything:

a God or not a god.

[White Rabbit]

Scott! You just now figured all this out? What took you so long.

If I can sum up quickly the way I see your prose;

1. The universe as we know emerges from one grand law.
2. All the phenomena we (including you) observe and label come from our screwed up perspective as evolved monkeys who forgot where they came from.

Welcome to the party.

[Gene]

What have you done with Scott? Why are we getting these acid flashback questions?

[Bruce Harrison]

You can label anything you want "God." You can label attraction as God, or the Earth as God, or your navel as God. But what you are really looking at is evidence of God's existence, not defining what God "is."

It becomes an Occam's razor type of argument: the simplest explanation for creation is that something created it. Hence, the most logical conclusion you can reach from things like gravity and beauty is that God created them. To assume otherwise (that is, to assume in the absence of evidence, that the universe was created in some way other than being created), is to adopt a faith-based belief in nothing.

You are certainly welcome to believe in any nothing that you want, Scott. But ultimately, all your plethora of arguments are attempts to prove a negative, to wit: God does not exist. You can't prove a negative; and so, all these types of posts, while admittedly a fun form of mental masturbation, are ultimately nothing more than attempts to do the impossible. Don Quixote would be proud.

You mention the eye and the bird's wing as proof of non-directed evolution. You state that as a fact, without support. Those who challenge random evolution point to the same two things as evidence that they couldn't have occurred randomly in any reasonable timeframe.

How, for example, did the eye evolve? It just seems to have appeared, without simpler eye-type organs preceding it. How did color perception come into being? How did organs develop that could differentiate between very very tiny variations in frequencies of light?

And if you want a real mind-blower, explain fractals, and the patterns in chaos. That implies some underlying order and direction - again, by Occam's razor, if patterns exist it is reasonable to assume that there is an intelligence behind them. A pattern in randomness? Hmmmm. Now THERE'S a concept that could point to God, if you looked at the situation logically.

What you continue to do is confuse formalized religion with the existence of God. While most single-deity religions may not agree on certain parts of their dogma, they are trying to understand the mind of God. That's a tough goal - it's understandable that some aspects will be wrong, or at odds with one another.

That doesn't mean that a Creator doesn't exist; it just means that our understanding of that Creator is flawed. Those are two very different things, Scott. And there's some food for today's thought.

[WCE]

The Law of Sexual Attraction for humans, at least, is fairly simple - People have self-perceived deficits, and when they see others who have strengths in those areas that they, themselves, feel inadequate, they feel attraction for that person.

Not everyone agrees on who's the most beautiful woman or most handsome man. If you feel short, you'll tend to be attracted to someone tall. If you're tall, and you feel height is important to you, and you feel that you're tall enough, you won't care whether the other person is tall or short.

This is part of evolution, the basis of sexual selection. Even if the traits you find attractive have no genetic aspect, the Law of Attraction still applies. But lots of traits *are* genetic (e.g., pretty eyes), and so evolution boils down to whether your kids resemble their parents or not. They always do, so QED.

Now there's a 50/50 chance that the kids will have the worst traits of both parents or the best traits of both. If you're smart and she's pretty, and you have two kids, it's just as likely that one kid will be smart and pretty, and the other will be dumb and ugly. In unchallenging times (in the survival sense), sexual selection will favor the smart-pretty one finding a mate and having more kids than the dumb-ugly one, so as time goes on, the human population tends to get prettier and smarter (and taller).

This is confounded, of course, by the natural tendency of horny people settling for whomever they can get and breeding like rabbits, while the smart/pretty set play the field and don't have kids. I'm not going to live long enough for the world to run out of pretty girls and smart people to interact with, so I'm not too upset about it.

Attraction in the laws of the Physical Universe don't necessarily work the same way, although it'd make singles' bars really funny if they did, one hot chick walks in and all the guys come flying through the air from across the bar and sticking to her in one big cluster).

But it wouldn't prove God's existence even if it did.

(That "proof" lies elsewhere.)

[Miguel]

...and then they ask why we say old people are stupid... :)

Okay, let me say a few things.

I'm not a good explainer of stuff, so try to understand. Don't say I'm wrong because the language I use is wrong. If your going to criticize, don't use 'what I say' as an excuse.

First, as other pointed out, you are just misusing the word 'attraction'. If you call two different things the same, then they must be, right?

Then, what does it mean 'a single law'? Is electromagnetism a single law? It is described with 4 equations, not 1. Is it a single law? Is it 4?

'Physical laws' are mathematical ways to approximate things on how (we think) they are. And WE invented math, WE invent all that stuff precisely to approximate as best we can the behavior we observe.

String theory and 'unified field theory' and all that crap is just our attempts to describe something in easy laws FOR US, for our own understanding of them. If we come up with a simple mathematical theory that correctly predicts everything, that would be great because it would make us understand better and predict better, not the other way around. What I mean is, it's extremely easy to say "I have a unified theory for everything" and be correct, because your "theory" can include everything.

Is that a 'unified theory of everything?' Sure. Is it helpful? No.

Now, I agree that physicists have some fault for their stuff being misinterpreted. But people are so dumb...
"but there has long been a belief they could all be explained or connected by a so-called unified field theory"

No, there hasn't 'been a belief', it's obviously true. We can make mathematical theories as complicated as we like and just 'define' stuff as we see fit to fit our purposes.

The belief, really, is that it could be explained efficiently and simply with a single 'equation' or property or useful way.

Semantics.

And then, you can call anything 'god' and then say 'hey, god exists.'

How you came from 'let's call god beauty' to 'this god of universal law is omnipotent and loving and the creator of everything' is beyond me. Loving? Seriously? Hey, gravity loves me! Even if it might kill me!

Hey, everyone thinks I'm ugly (I'm not handsome), that must mean god doesn't love ME!

Which takes me back to 'old people are stupid'. They are so set in their ways that they don't even distinguish language from reality. I'm kidding, of course, I know that has nothing to do with age (but it is more common for old people to say stuff like that).

[Lars Kjær]

It really has nothing to do with god- it's explained by evolution- it'd be a horribly bad trait not to be attracted to a mate or food- hence it'd die out. Beauty is largely defined with characteristics which could be useful: symmetry which is seen as beautiful is an indicator of better physical performance (an faster and easier than convincing someone to run a marathon) breast and hips are an indicator of ability to bear children, physical fitness (toned muscle mass and such) is clearly a positive trait. Some don't make sense but those are often cultural- say the interest in having slim people is only a recent post food surplus development.

[Adit]

Ive revisited the blog after a long time, and I found this quite interesting argument/discussion/sermon/ etc about God and God being the underlying force, whch is that one unified rule.

The following is a very interesting arugument which I think (as far as I could read) no one posted. The Universal Law of Energy Conservation states that:

1. Energy can neither be created nor Destroyed
2. It can only be tranformed from one form to another
3. The total amount of energy in the Universe is always constant.

If I am not wrong (not being an expert in religions), but most of the religions describe God in exactly the same manner.

1. God was never born, and neither can He die.
2. Most of the mythologies talk about different Gods having different strengths like Wind, Fire, Water etc or are ruling one of those elements. This is true atleast for teh Hindu philosophy and I believe to an extent even the Greek and Roman philophy.
3. There is only ONE GOD - A lesson without an exception taught by every religion, philosopher, priest or follower

With this in view, it is absolutely valid to say that there is a correlation between energy and the concept of God.
And come to think of it, yes laws of attraction do govern every system.

Mechanically - laws of centrifugal and centripetal forces, gravity and friction
Electronically - The fundamental of electron getting attracted to postive 'holes'
Electrically - Every one knows how a battery works, and why electricity is produced
Chemically - Chemical bonds, absorption, adsorption
Sociologically - lot of things already discussed, about preferences, love, and procreation
Emotionally - Love, hate, lust,

I think I have already written too much and have cleared my stance. I hope people actually end up reading this long and winding comment.

[Test]

Great post!

[Marc]

What's wrong with you?

[David]

Labeling beauty as "God" is very, very different from calling beauty "evidence of God." For starters, the former is defining "God" as something which clearly exists. The latter leaves open-ended just what you meant by "God." The Judeo-Christian god? Baal? Zeus? Some vague, omnipotent, yet non-sentient force? It leads most believers to assume you mean "A bearded man in the sky."

And no, the existence of beauty is in no way "evidence" that the god of any major world religion exists. Anybody who says it does needs to look up the definition of "evidence."

[Anarchy In Your Head]

If you're broad enough in your interpretation of what God means, then eventually everyone becomes a theist but it becomes more and more meaningless. I describe myself as agnostic. Generally if someone asks me if I believe that God may exist, I ask them to describe very specifically what THEY mean by "God" before I can answer that question.

[Iliya Sheikin]

If I were to babble about the foundations of reality without scientific or philosophical responsibility, I would come up with talking quite unlike yours, Mr. Adams.

It would go somewhat like, "the fundamental driving force behind everything is repulsion".

Think of it: our own wonderful species survived largely thanks to the observable fact of natural selection. In the process of deadly struggle with other species for resources and proliferation, we are here, and the dodo bird is not.

Even the Universe itself could not exist in its breadth and complexity, as far as cosmologists know, without some force[s] that keep[s] galaxies apart - and indeed, moving further apart.

The sense of beauty is but an optional side feature in comparison to the very essential feeling of hate, which, before the creation of present-day prisonlike society, was the most efficient way through social dealings: the one who had more "drive" in downing his competitors, would ultimately win and get the better share.

And, just as you irresponsibly compare the feeling of aesthetical pleasure to the idea of "attraction", I could say that hate is somehow correspondent to "repulsion", the basic force behind all reality.

[Miguel]

The Law of Attraction? Frankly, that was awful Scott.

And to call it god was even worse......

[jerry w.]

The basis of attraction can be imprinting.

My lifelong pursuit of a certain look is the direct result of being in a class with one

Jane C. in about the 7th grade at Coffee elementary school, Detroit, c. 1959 or 60.

She was the basis of my idea of the ideal combination of physical attributes , i.e. of

Irish ancestry with brown hair, light skin, etc) that has resulted in two divorces from

two wrong women who had the right genetic background but the wrong set of values.

I could see the beauty in blondes, latinas and black women, but they just didn't have "it".

Now I do my thinking with my upper brain and I will not give away any more houses.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Kurt]

I forgive anyone, my God it would be petty not to. If God is the attraction, what is the force that keeps an atoms electrons from collapsing into the nucleus? I'm having a devil of a time finding a label for repellent.

[froginthewell]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_1/Lectures_And_Discourses/Privilege

[Raman VikramAdith]

Sorry, if this has been mentioned in one of the previous comments, a universal law cannot be 'God', as 'God' would need to be a conscious entity. Or else, well, it's just a universal law.

[More Equal Than You]

No, you could not be forgiven for supposing that. It is a good thing I believe passionately in futility and meaninglessness, otherwise I would be distraught at the massive injustice that you are famous.

[Jamie]

If Paris Hilton is somehow proof that God exists then I'm outta' here!

[Kevin Kunreuther]

Why cling to this idea of God? Just to have something to argue about? Or perhaps, because faith in "something" has use in establishing a type of social order. Do you believe or subscribe to the idea of the Noble lie? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)

[Martin Stennert]

The "force" responsible for the wide variety of attraction (just as the wide variety of repulsion), is a very simple principle, that - if anything - rather explains away a number of things usually quoted as indications of a God.
It's just that those animals that do not look for food or procreation aren't around any more. Same as a universe that wouldn't sustain life... well, we wouldn't be in it to ask ourselves if it was designed that way on purpose. And a universe without gravity, nuclear attraction and magnetism simply wouldn't support anything we recognize as life.

But in this whole quest for "proof or no proof" for god, I think a lot of things get confused. (Btw. there is a great video of an argument between an atheist and a theist here: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg. Watch it to the end, that's the best part.) I do not think that there is much point in trying to fit the idea of god into the scientific view of the world - because science concerns itself with HOW things work, while religion is usually a search for answers to the question WHY things work the way they work, or rather TO WHAT PURPOSE.

So while science is arguably the better tool to figure out how the universe is run, it says little on the subject what the purpose of existence is. Accordingly religion shouldn't be used to argue the mechanics of the world, but concentrate on the meaning.

If anything, the concept of god is our way of seeing and comprehending the patterns, rules and currents of meaning, purpose, synchronicity and serendipity in the world.

As for god's "scientific" explanation: If he/she/it existed before the creation of the physical world and still exists outside of it, is omniscient and omnipotent, he/she/it doesn't need to bend physical rules to affect the world: He/she/it can simply work in tweaking probability, arranging coincidence, and shifting patterns of perception. After all, the fact that our brain works within the matrix of biochemistry and electricity doesn't make our thoughts and feelings less meaningful. Why should a prescient and omnipotent god create rules he has to break later? He would simply (out of sheer efficiency, I would assume) create them exactly in a way that he/she/it never would have to break them, but could work with and through them.

True miracles do not become less miraculous when we find a way to explain them. If anything, they become even more of a miracle, when we understand how simply and effectively they were created. Everything else would be just stage magic, and I think beyond a true god's dignity.

[Lag]

Still, what is wrong with you?