kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Kurt,

What about the notes on a music scale?

How do you account for their existence?

---

Pressure waves caused by vibration of an instrument. Humans define specific frequency ranges at 'notes'.

If your plan is to burrow in further until we reach questions about how I account for fundamental forces in nature. . . .then see answer above. I don't know. And I'm okay with that. I'd like to know. But, I'm more inclined to admit I don't know rather than explain it with something I'm even further away from being able to explain.

---

But the fact that musical notes are arranged in a certain way is just unknown?

The point is that transcendental truths are coherent with the Christian worldview like musical notes, the laws of logic, and a final justice.

I find the existence of these transcendental truths to be
incoherent in the materialistic worldview of atheism and agnosticism.

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

I've never seen anybody try to prove God's existence using musical notes. That's a first for me.

Hey does God use A440 or A432? Someone has to settle this and if there's been some divine decree on the matter I think we all ought to know.

Rocag said:

---

I've never seen anybody try to prove God's existence using musical notes. That's a first for me.

Hey does God use A440 or A432? Someone has to settle this and if there's been some divine decree on the matter I think we all ought to know.

---

Both can be accounted for…

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

Kurt,

All you are doing is just another form of a reductio ad absurdum.

I'm completely missing why you think this is a convincing argument. It makes literally zero sense to me.

Notes, chords, rhythms and the like are human constructs. There were created, not discovered.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Kurt,

All you are doing is just another form of a reductio ad absurdum.

---

No, I'm hinting at a simple non sequitur. That is, I believe that the existence of the transcendental does not follow from the existence of music notes.

Rocag said:

---

I'm completely missing why you think this is a convincing argument. It makes literally zero sense to me.

Notes, chords, rhythms and the like are human constructs. There were created, not discovered.

---

Notes and sounds of notes by physics and music theory (even the breaking of music theory) were there before mankind "discovered" them.

The laws of logic were there before mankind "discovered" them.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Notes and sounds of notes by physics and music theory (even the breaking of music theory) were there before mankind "discovered" them.

The laws of logic were there before mankind "discovered" them.

---

Okay. Why does that mean God exists?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Notes and sounds of notes by physics and music theory (even the breaking of music theory) were there before mankind "discovered" them.

The laws of logic were there before mankind "discovered" them.

---

Okay. Why does that mean God exists?

---

Because truth and beauty are coherent in their transcendental existence in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

But they aren't coherent in their transcendental existence by a sheer materialistic worldview.

You're having to borrow the transcendental from the Judeo-Christian worldview to try to critique it.

And concerning hypocrisies, I agree with many of your concerns.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

Let's say that there is a certain sound that we all recognize as C. Is that sound inherently C? Should we expect different cultures to independently all come to recognize that that specific sound should be called C? No, we recognize that's a silly proposal. The idea of C didn't exist until some person assigned that name to that specific sound. Other cultures might have other names for it or no name at all. The concept of the note C is by no means universal. We created it. We defined it. We could, if we so chose, change the meaning and decide that some other sound should be called C.

Humans assigning value to things that independently exist isn't a convincing proof that the assigned value is somehow universal or transcendent.

Rocag said:

---

Let's say that there is a certain sound that we all recognize as C. Is that sound inherently C? Should we expect different cultures to independently all come to recognize that that specific sound should be called C? No, we recognize that's a silly proposal. The idea of C didn't exist until some person assigned that name to that specific sound. Other cultures might have other names for it or no name at all. The concept of the note C is by no means universal. We created it. We defined it. We could, if we so chose, change the meaning and decide that some other sound should be called C.

Humans assigning value to things that independently exist isn't a convincing proof that the assigned value is somehow universal or transcendent.

---

I don't care how C is labeled or numbered. That's what words are for to describe things and numbers are assigned to count things.

Then what are you claiming was intelligently designed?

Rocag said:

---

Then what are you claiming was intelligently designed?

---

That there are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that are out there to be developed because God put an order to them.

Not to mention the beauty and emotion that songs capture are all orchestrated by an intelligent designer who gave us the tools.

It's like the scientist who went to heaven and said "Look we've created life." And the Lord said, " What are you holding behind your back?" The Scientist said, "
It's dirt and dust."
God said, "I see what you did there." " Now give me back my dirt and dust."

When we create music, it is because we are borrowing from the preeminent and preexistent laws of music.

When we use logic, we are using something that preexisted before man used them as tools.

The materialistic worldview of atheism and agnosticism cannot account for the preexistent transcendental truths of the universe.

It can only use them as tools for whatever needs to be accomplished.

All that is required is faith and repentance. Obedience is something the Gospel inherently does.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Notes and sounds of notes by physics and music theory (even the breaking of music theory) were there before mankind "discovered" them.

The laws of logic were there before mankind "discovered" them.

---

Okay. Why does that mean God exists?

---

Because truth and beauty are coherent in their transcendental existence in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

But they aren't coherent in their transcendental existence by a sheer materialistic worldview.

You're having to borrow the transcendental from the Judeo-Christian worldview to try to critique it.

And concerning hypocrisies, I agree with many of your concerns.

---

Maybe I can help here. . . .

Reality is absurd. Our species exists on a floating rock in a potentially infinite near-void with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of suns each in a universe billions of years old. We are born, develop self consciousness, an inner voice, and we die. Any attempt to deal with contradiction between human desire for meaning and purpose and an apparently chaotic and random universe, tries to deal with this uncertainty, chaos, and absurdity.

Christian presuppositions could be seen as a tool for making sense of that chaos. It explains the chaos, gives meaning, explains where it all came from, etc. But that doesn't mean it is accurate. All it means is that you've found a reality shaped problem and proposed a reality shaped solution.

Here is an analogy I used recently: a detective finds a body in the woods. The detective wants to know what killed the person. The detective could propose that an alien race created a bear-monster hybrid beast that killed the person and then was destroyed by the alien race leaving no trace. That answer could be correct. It is a solution which 'checks all the boxes' of the known information of this mystery. But, just because it checks the boxes, doesn't mean it is correct. Why introduce something so unfounded and unprovable and absurd to explain a mystery?

The downside to your set of presuppositions, in my opinion, is that in creating this internally consistent framework for reality based on God, you propose an infinitely complex super-being. And this being is timeless and spaceless and infinite and capable of creating existence with set fundamental physical principles out of thin air. And 100% of that last sentence is absurd. If its a true statement, it is entirely by accident because, human beings are not capable of understanding any of those concepts. Maybe you know what its like to exist outside of time, I don't. Maybe you've created existences and fundamental physical principles, I haven't. Maybe you know what its like to exist for eternity, I don't. The Christian solution to the question is fundamentally absurd for human beings to comprehend. Christianity takes a difficult question and answers it magic / infinite superbeings / aliens and mutant bears . . . . basically, it answers the question with unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable faith.

Now, before you take offense to any of that. . .my solution isn't any better. I presuppose that the material world is rational and that information can be gained through empirical observation and measurement. I presuppose uniformity and causality. As far as the source of those things - **** if I know! My presuppositions and worldview are grounded in [shrug]. And that is absurd as well. But, I prefer it over the alternative.

In conclusion, you asked good questions about the source of logic and music and fundamental physical principles. But, you then concluded that the ONLY way for those things to exist is by creation from an infinite super magic being. And you make this claim as though you, personally, have such a perfect and thorough understand of how existence itself was created so as to be able to say that this is the only way for it to have come to be.

Why not just say, "I believe there is a God, but can't prove it."? I've got no objections to that statement. It is when you begin to tell me that you know how existence was created that I'm going to call bull*****

Maybe logic and music are natural phenomenon in infinite and purely material universe? Maybe God created it all. Maybe these are emergent properties from the software running the simulation we live in. I don't think any of us know. And other than for sake of your pride or your comfort, I don't see why claim to know.

Kurt,

I'll keep you in my prayers.

I'm just arguing that the Judeo-Christian worldview best answers these apparent phenomena.
I believe it best answers the big questions of life.

Who are we? And what are we here for?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Kurt,

I'll keep you in my prayers.

I'm just arguing that the Judeo-Christian worldview best answers these apparent phenomena.
I believe it best answers the big questions of life.

Who are we? And what are we here for?

---

Thats fine. I don't. I'm good with agreeing to disagree.

And I take no exception to you praying for me or saying you'll keep me in my prayers. But, when it is said in a condescending manner as though there is something wrong with me that you're hoping will be fixed, I don't much like that. I trust that isn't what you meant.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Kurt,

I'll keep you in my prayers.

I'm just arguing that the Judeo-Christian worldview best answers these apparent phenomena.
I believe it best answers the big questions of life.

Who are we? And what are we here for?

---

Thats fine. I don't. I'm good with agreeing to disagree.

And I take no exception to you praying for me or saying you'll keep me in my prayers. But, when it is said in a condescending manner as though there is something wrong with me that you're hoping will be fixed, I don't much like that. I trust that isn't what you meant.

---

No sir. I'm being sincere. I'm hoping that you will become a Christian because this universe, in and of itself, just doesn't care.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

No sir. I'm being sincere. I'm hoping that you will become a Christian because this universe, in and of itself, just doesn't care.

---

Great. And I am hoping you abandon God and your faith and become an atheist.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

---

And all I'm stating is that without God, you can't account for its beauty and intelligent framework.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

---

And all I'm stating is that without God, you can't account for its beauty and intelligent framework.

---

This literally isn't true. It's no different than saying without god you can't account for the beauty and intelligent framework of the english language.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Notes and sounds of notes by physics and music theory (even the breaking of music theory) were there before mankind "discovered" them.

The laws of logic were there before mankind "discovered" them.

---

Okay. Why does that mean God exists?

---

Because truth and beauty are coherent in their transcendental existence in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

But they aren't coherent in their transcendental existence by a sheer materialistic worldview.

You're having to borrow the transcendental from the Judeo-Christian worldview to try to critique it.

And concerning hypocrisies, I agree with many of your concerns.

---

Maybe I can help here. . . .

Reality is absurd. Our species exists on a floating rock in a potentially infinite near-void with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of suns each in a universe billions of years old. We are born, develop self consciousness, an inner voice, and we die. Any attempt to deal with contradiction between human desire for meaning and purpose and an apparently chaotic and random universe, tries to deal with this uncertainty, chaos, and absurdity.

Christian presuppositions could be seen as a tool for making sense of that chaos. It explains the chaos, gives meaning, explains where it all came from, etc. But that doesn't mean it is accurate. All it means is that you've found a reality shaped problem and proposed a reality shaped solution.

Here is an analogy I used recently: a detective finds a body in the woods. The detective wants to know what killed the person. The detective could propose that an alien race created a bear-monster hybrid beast that killed the person and then was destroyed by the alien race leaving no trace. That answer could be correct. It is a solution which 'checks all the boxes' of the known information of this mystery. But, just because it checks the boxes, doesn't mean it is correct. Why introduce something so unfounded and unprovable and absurd to explain a mystery?

The downside to your set of presuppositions, in my opinion, is that in creating this internally consistent framework for reality based on God, you propose an infinitely complex super-being. And this being is timeless and spaceless and infinite and capable of creating existence with set fundamental physical principles out of thin air. And 100% of that last sentence is absurd. If its a true statement, it is entirely by accident because, human beings are not capable of understanding any of those concepts. Maybe you know what its like to exist outside of time, I don't. Maybe you've created existences and fundamental physical principles, I haven't. Maybe you know what its like to exist for eternity, I don't. The Christian solution to the question is fundamentally absurd for human beings to comprehend. Christianity takes a difficult question and answers it magic / infinite superbeings / aliens and mutant bears . . . . basically, it answers the question with unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable faith.

Now, before you take offense to any of that. . .my solution isn't any better. I presuppose that the material world is rational and that information can be gained through empirical observation and measurement. I presuppose uniformity and causality. As far as the source of those things - **** if I know! My presuppositions and worldview are grounded in [shrug]. And that is absurd as well. But, I prefer it over the alternative.

In conclusion, you asked good questions about the source of logic and music and fundamental physical principles. But, you then concluded that the ONLY way for those things to exist is by creation from an infinite super magic being. And you make this claim as though you, personally, have such a perfect and thorough understand of how existence itself was created so as to be able to say that this is the only way for it to have come to be.

Why not just say, "I believe there is a God, but can't prove it."? I've got no objections to that statement. It is when you begin to tell me that you know how existence was created that I'm going to call bull*****

Maybe logic and music are natural phenomenon in infinite and purely material universe? Maybe God created it all. Maybe these are emergent properties from the software running the simulation we live in. I don't think any of us know. And other than for sake of your pride or your comfort, I don't see why claim to know.

---

I believe Kurt, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when you write posts like this you think you're being intellectually humble. I think they require far more certainty and self-assurance than you give them credit for though and just cloak themselves as humility (this is not intended to be demeaning or condescending, simply to convey that I think there are assumptions smuggled in which aren't recognized).

If another person says God spoke to them, what basis do you have to reject that? You can only speak to your own experience, right? So why sit here and argue repeatedly on a forum that my personal experience should be rejected because you don't share it or understand it? If God exists in those ways posited how can you impose your rationalist understanding upon Him and dictate how He functions? How do you arrive at the conclusion that you understand enough of the remainder of the universe to confidently state those things couldn't happen, or that the universe is absurd (mentioned several times)? Those things all require certainty to state, not ignorance.

I think people who are humble and ignorant ask questions and listen rather than dictate to others or post things like, 'I hope you become an atheist.'

Not to dump on you but there's an inconsistency here that's prevalent and doesn't reconcile.

AGC said:

---

I think people who are humble and ignorant ask questions and listen rather than dictate to others or post things like, 'I hope you become an atheist.'

---

I'll respond to the rest of your post, but, out of curiosity . . . what is objectionable about 'I hope you loose your faith in your religion and become an atheist' that doesn't equally apply to 'I hope you find God and become a Christian'?

I actually don't care if he becomes an atheist or not - I posted what I did to make a specific point. . . . and I'm just glad that someone bit.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

---

And all I'm stating is that without God, you can't account for its beauty and intelligent framework.

---

This literally isn't true. It's no different than saying without god you can't account for the beauty and intelligent framework of the english language.

---

That's an aesthetic argument that I accept as well.
Without God, there is no framework for truth and
beauty. Period.

But that's not the main argument.

The argument is that without the divine, there cannot be a foundation for a final justice, the existence of the laws of logic, and the framework of the musical scales.

Darwinian evolution using science cannot account for these things.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I think people who are humble and ignorant ask questions and listen rather than dictate to others or post things like, 'I hope you become an atheist.'

---

I'll respond to the rest of your post, but, out of curiosity . . . what is objectionable about 'I hope you loose your faith in your religion and become an atheist' that doesn't equally apply to 'I hope you find God and become a Christian'?

I actually don't care if he becomes an atheist or not - I posted what I did to make a specific point. . . . and I'm just glad that someone bit.

---

It undermines your argument that you're just a humble guy admitting your ignorance. The only context in which those are equivalent is if what he believes is untrue - because then who cares either way (in which case you prejudice your knowledge and experience over his). If it is true it's a benevolent, kind act even if you don't like it and it's a jerk move to wish ill on him

AGC said:

---

I believe Kurt, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when you write posts like this you think you're being intellectually humble. I think they require far more certainty and self-assurance than you give them credit for though and just cloak themselves as humility (this is not intended to be demeaning or condescending, simply to convey that I think there are assumptions smuggled in which aren't recognized).

If another person says God spoke to them, what basis do you have to reject that? You can only speak to your own experience, right? So why sit here and argue repeatedly on a forum that my personal experience should be rejected because you don't share it or understand it? If God exists in those ways posited how can you impose your rationalist understanding upon Him and dictate how He functions? How do you arrive at the conclusion that you understand enough of the remainder of the universe to confidently state those things couldn't happen, or that the universe is absurd (mentioned several times)? Those things all require certainty to state, not ignorance.

Not to dump on you but there's an inconsistency here that's prevalent and doesn't reconcile.

---

As for this part -

Part of me very much agrees with this criticism. When I write something like that I end up rereading and editing a fair deal because I am trying to strike a balance between be firm in my positions without sounding like an arrogant jerk. Sometimes I reread my posts and think I go too far with how I state my positions.

As for the start of the second paragraph, I think you've misread my position. Your personal experience is your own. By all means, value you it, call it knowledge, believe that you spoke to God. I'm telling you why I am skeptical of it. There is zero difference in your skepticism that Hindus are speaking to Vishnu and my skepticism that you are speaking to your God. I'm telling you why I don't think its convincing. You can discard my skepticism or you can use it to question whether you spoke to God or not. My certainty here is in the fact that I'm certain that I'm skeptical. I'm not trying to tell you what to do.

As for the certainty in which I "impose your rationalist understanding upon Him and dictate how He functions"? I am quite literally doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. I am suggesting we should not impose any of our understandings on such a being, if It exists.

How do I "confidently state those things couldn't happen"? Again, I am literally taking the opposite position.

If God is as complex and infinite as you suggest Him to be, don't you think we should be careful with "God MUST be. . . . . " statements? I feel like you might agree with me.

All that said, I will say that I do catch myself stating some things in an overly-certain way. By all means, call me out on those things.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

---

And all I'm stating is that without God, you can't account for its beauty and intelligent framework.

---

This literally isn't true. It's no different than saying without god you can't account for the beauty and intelligent framework of the english language.

---

That's an aesthetic argument that I accept as well.
Without God, there is no framework for truth and
beauty. Period.

But that's not the main argument.

The argument is that without the divine, there is no foundation for a final justice, the existence of the laws of logic, and the framework of the musical scales.

Darwinian evolution using science cannot account for these things.

---

Quote:

---

The argument is that without the divine, there is no foundation for a final justice, the existence of the laws of logic, and the framework of the musical scales.

---

As pointed out before there is no foundation for final justice in the Chistian framework. The laws of logic may simple "be" just as you would say the character and existence of your god simply "is".

Quote:

---

Darwinian evolution using science cannot account for these things.

---

There isn't a single part of musical scales that evolution cannot account for.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Musical notes are contrived by man. They are not arranged a certain way by nature. It's a convention

---

There are only so many notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms that can be used. Why is that?

---

Because certain people chose those. It's just frequencies. Music theory, note convention are purely human choice. Any number of conventions can be used and others have been used. The only part of this that is governed by nature is that human beings can only decern different notes to a certain precision.

---

Notes are from an intelligent designer. They didn't appear out of chance or because humans can use them in various ways.

---

There is zero evidence of this. We can use other notes, we have used other notes. It's no different than words in english. Yes we have a convention, and yes we have an alphabet, but that's pure human invention.

---

And all I'm stating is that without God, you can't account for its beauty and intelligent framework.

---

This literally isn't true. It's no different than saying without god you can't account for the beauty and intelligent framework of the english language.

---

That's an aesthetic argument that I accept as well.
Without God, there is no framework for truth and
beauty. Period.

But that's not the main argument.

The argument is that without the divine, there is no foundation for a final justice, the existence of the laws of logic, and the framework of the musical scales.

Darwinian evolution using science cannot account for these things.

---

Quote:

---

The argument is that without the divine, there is no foundation for a final justice, the existence of the laws of logic, and the framework of the musical scales.

---

As pointed out before there is no foundation for final justice in the Chistian framework. The laws of logic may simple "be" just as you would say the character and existence of your god simply "is".

Quote:

---

Darwinian evolution using science cannot account for these things.

---

There isn't a single part of musical scales that evolution cannot account for.

---

Their preexistence? I don't think so. In the mind
of God…they are eternal.

They don't pre-exist, any more than the english language pre-exists, or netflix pre-exists. I really think you are confused fundamentally about the nature of music.

Aggrad08 said:

---

They don't pre-exist, any more than the english language pre-exists, or netflix pre-exists. I really think you are confused fundamentally about the nature of music.

---

Language originated from God giving humans the ability to deceive things and communicate. Christ as the Divine Logos answers this question as well (see John 1).

But we aren't discussing language, but we can.
Language, in order to make sense, must heed to the laws of logic, which also preexisted before mankind discovered them.