Warning!: New user here and first discussion post.

I hope to provide an argument that utilizes the prime principle of confirmation to show that objective beauty provides evidence in favor of the hypothesis of theism over that of atheism. I slightly “tune” (pun intended) Robin Collin’s Fine Tuning Argument, in which he utilizes the same format to demonstrate that the fine tuning of the universe provides evidence in favor of theism over atheism.

First off, the prime principle of confirmation is a simple principle which essentially says, given “two competing hypotheses, H1 and H2, an observation, O, counts as evidence in favor of H1 over H2 if O is more probable under H1 than it is under H2” (taken directly from Collin’s Fine Tuning Argument)

Using this principle, I submit the simple argument.

The existence of objective beauty is not improbable under theism
The existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism
C. The existence of objective beauty provides strong evidence to favor the theism over atheism (prime principle)

Support for the premise 1:
I am operating under an impression of the Judeo-Christian God, when referring to theism, and thus God is an all-good, loving creator. If the world was created by a Creator God, then it seems very likely that, just as an artist does, God would create things that force us to say things like, “wow, that sunset is beautiful, something must have created that”. I know that I simply exert the existence of objective beauty, and to provide a quick explanation I’ll go with the sunset example again. Someone looking out over the ocean and seeing an incredible sunset will say it is beautiful, and I think we would say something is quite wrong with an individual that doesn’t acknowledge it as beautiful. In a similar way that humans have an intrinsic “thermometer” for moral values, humans seem to have this for beauty. Thus it is not at all surprising that we have a “beauty thermometer” under theism.

Support for premise 2:
Under the atheist hypothesis, it is generally accepted that different human attributes arise through the process of natural selection in order to maximize overall fitness of the individual. Thus, if humans have this “beauty thermometer”, for what purpose did this attribute arise? I see absolutely no reason for us attributing awe and wonder to something beautiful like a sunset, within a world where natural selection is the driving force. One could argue that attributing beauty to a mate or food or something in that order is a part of natural selection’s driving force, but taking something like a sunset or the milky-way in a clear sky, I see no evolutionary advantage. I could actually imagine situations where this would decrease our fitness! Imagine early humans entranced by the beauty of a sunset and, being distracted, become easier prey for other predators. Thus under atheism and namely the theory of how humanity has developed through natural selection, objective beauty is very improbable.

Conclusion:
From these two premises, if you accept them, apply the prime principle of confirmation and the result is that objective beauty provides strong evidence for theism, namely an all-good Creator.