What kind of creation would any creator create?

[Percivale]

My life's trials, triumphs, and tragedies are not a damn show.

Would you rather the whole of existence was an accident than an epic planned by and for the interest of the most intelligent being in the universe?

Yes.

At least if it's an accident, there's no one to blame for the awful parts!

Everybody has different preferences I guess. Not that they change reality.

 

[Percivale]

Such as?

The human tendency to appreciate beauty and art, to form religions, to discuss the meaning of life, all our pursuits that are not related to surviving and reproducing, yet enrich life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The human tendency to appreciate beauty and art, to form religions, to discuss the meaning of life, all our pursuits that are not related to surviving and reproducing, yet enrich life.

You stated that "as soon as you look beyond physics into psychology you start finding things that are better explained by God's existence." How is the human tendency to appreciate beauty, to create art, and to discuss the meaning of life, all mentally enriching activities, best explained by God's existence?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

How is the human tendency to appreciate beauty, to create art, and to discuss the meaning of life, all mentally enriching activities, best explained by God's existence?

Do we have proof that earlier man was able to do these things?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do we have proof that earlier man was able to do these things?

Even if we don't, how does this point to a god?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Even if we don't, how does this point to a god?

Since when is your lack of proof any better than mine...?

The truth is, we don't have anything but speculation as to how those things have come about. Take music, for instance: at what point in our evolution were we able to compose music? What did prehistoric music sound like, and at what point did it begin to take discernible structural form? How about poetry?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since when is your lack of proof any better than mine...?

The truth is, we don't have anything but speculation as to how those things have come about. Take music, for instance: at what point in our evolution were we able to compose music? What did prehistoric music sound like, and at what point did it begin to take discernible structural form? How about poetry?

This sounds suspiciously like an argument from ignorance. If we know nothing about the origins of music (I suspect that this is untrue), then how does Goddidit follow as an explanation?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

This sounds suspiciously like an argument from ignorance. If we know nothing about the origins of music (I suspect that this is untrue), then how does Goddidit follow as an explanation?

Speculation is speculation...it's not "proof" of anything, necessarily. It could possibly be one step towards the discovery that man is set apart from the animal kingdom and not merely an evolved form therein. But who knows? Archaeologists could dig up some Neanderthal greatest hits tomorrow too...

Which do you think came first: music or poetry? (this is totally off-topic, honestly...it just struck me as an interesting question)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Speculation is speculation...it's not "proof" of anything, necessarily. It could possibly be one step towards the discovery that man is set apart from the animal kingdom and not merely an evolved form therein. But who knows? Archaeologists could dig up some Neanderthal greatest hits tomorrow too...

At least you admit to speculating. I think you should be credited for that. Quite often believers will speculate about the supernatural origins of something, but will refuse to admit that they are in fact speculating.

Which do you think came first: music or poetry? (this is totally off-topic, honestly...it just struck me as an interesting question)

I think it's difficult to separate the two, so however they originated, it's probable that they originated together, both before the invention of writing. Many of my coworkers do music cognition research, so their speculations would be a lot more informed than my own. I'll put the question to them and see what they say.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I think it's difficult to separate the two, so however they originated, it's probable that they originated together, both before the invention of writing. Many of my coworkers do music cognition research, so their speculations would be a lot more informed than my own. I'll put the question to them and see what they say.

I'd be very interested to learn what they have to say on the subject.

 

[Percivale]

You stated that "as soon as you look beyond physics into psychology you start finding things that are better explained by God's existence." How is the human tendency to appreciate beauty, to create art, and to discuss the meaning of life, all mentally enriching activities, best explained by God's existence?

If we are the product of an intelligent being, we might expect to have some qualities that are valued by intelligent beings, which these are. These qualities are not ones that would necessarily arise from natural processes, if we are only a result of natural processes, they are an unlikely accident.
This is speculative, since we have only one undisputed example of intelligent beings, ourselves. I hope we find some extraterrestrial life soon, especially intelligent life, that would give lots more data to philosophize about.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If we are the product of an intelligent being, we might expect to have some qualities that are valued by intelligent beings, which these are. These qualities are not ones that would necessarily arise from natural processes, if we are only a result of natural processes, they are an unlikely accident.

Why can't they arise from natural processes? And why assume that an intelligent being would necessarily be interested in us?

 

[Percivale]

Why can't they arise from natural processes? And why assume that an intelligent being would necessarily be interested in us?

I didn't say those qualities can't arise by natural processes, only that they would not be expected to; if they do, it's just a chance happening that's not very probable.

Again, we have only one example of intelligent beings; humans. But until we learn otherwise it's not unreasonable to expect other intelligent beings might have a lot in common with us. And people who have a hand in designing or building things usually are interested in what happens to those things. So if any being had a hand in designing us, chances are it has some interest in us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't say those qualities can't arise by natural processes, only that they would not be expected to; if they do, it's just a chance happening that's not very probable.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being a "chance happening."

Again, we have only one example of intelligent beings; humans. But until we learn otherwise it's not unreasonable to expect other intelligent beings might have a lot in common with us.

Why? As Neil deGrasse Tyson has argued, it's possible that some of our greatest intellectual feats, which take years for human beings to accomplish, could easily be mastered by toddlerhood in other intelligent species.

And people who have a hand in designing or building things usually are interested in what happens to those things. So if any being had a hand in designing us, chances are it has some interest in us.

I see no reason to assume this. We could just be a byproduct formed as a result of creating that thing they are most interested in.