Enough of this crap, I want to hear directly from god

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you explain children's tendency to believe and give purpose to all natural phenomena around them? Usually children aren't mature enough to imagine concepts.

The existence of human behavior is handily explained by the existence of the human nature of a human creature.

If this were a world where there were no gods, it would still be a fact that human children do that.  You may even take it to be instructive with reference to your own god beliefs.  Long long ago, some kid imagined fairies somewhere because that's what kids do, and now....many centuries later, you believe that those same fairies run the universe.

The real tragedy in all of this, is that there's an excluded third possibility. Yes, the children imagined the fairies that you now believe to be the authors of creation - but they weren't wrong about there being purpose in life. A natural teleology.

[R00tKiT]

If this were a world where there were no gods, it would still be a fact that human children do that.  

A world with no gods .. is a vacuous definition. The empty set of worlds who came ex nihilo can have any property, among which that human children tend to believe. Therefore I don't think you can explain away some godly imprint within us with this kind of reasoning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Regardless of whether there is a god or is not a god, the tendency of children to give purpose to natural phenomena and to imagine shit is a fact.

Maybe there is no god - and we do that.
Maybe there is a god - and we do that.
Maybe there is a god - and we do that...for reasons entirely unrelated to their being a god.
Maybe there is no god - and we do that.....for reasons entirely unrelated to their being no god.

I could continue. This question you posed is uninformative, and if it forms the basis of any of your beliefs about god I would say that you're doing god a disservice. That human children tend to do anything, in this case give purpose to things, is no indication that there is any god, or..if there is a god, that god is in any way involved in their doing so.

It's something that we do, and rather than asking others how they explain it you might well want to ask yourself why you can think of no explanation for the behavior of children outside of something about god. What do you think about the conjecture on it's own merits - aside from gods? The conjecture of purpose? My kids say chickens are for laying eggs, aristotle said that the telos of an acorn was to grow into an oak.

[R00tKiT]

The real tragedy in all of this, is that there's an excluded third possibility.  Yes, the children imagined the fairies that you now believe to be the authors of creation - but they weren't wrong about there being purpose in life.  A natural teleology.

Even if it were true, that the existence of supreme beings comes naturally to our imagination is remarkable in itself.

[HappySkeptic]

A world with no gods .. is a vacuous definition. The empty set of worlds who came ex nihilo can have any property, among which that human children tend to believe. Therefore I don't think you can explain away some godly imprint within us with this kind of reasoning.

The cause of the universe, and its exact nature are unknown.  There might not even be a cause.

Logical arguments for the existence of a "first cause" all fail.  But even if there were, why would it be anything like the gods that humans have invented?

Arguing that belief in gods is somehow evidence that gods have created us to believe in them, is just stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

The real tragedy in all of this, is that there's an excluded third possibility.  Yes, the children imagined the fairies that you now believe to be the authors of creation - but they weren't wrong about there being purpose in life.  A natural teleology.

Even if it were true, that the existence of supreme beings comes naturally to our imagination is remarkable in itself.

Not quite so remarkable, no.  

While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods. ... Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

-Xenophanes

What I'm wondering, though, is whether or not you think it's remarkable that children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and if so, how so?

[R00tKiT]

Regardless of whether there is a god or is not a god, the tendency of children to give purpose to natural phenomena and to imagine shit is a fact. 

And this fact makes the existence of a godly imprint more probable than not. I'll just say it again, the appearance of design and of what resembles the imprints of a supreme architect everywhere around us does make his existence more probable than not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Arguing that belief in gods is somehow evidence that gods have created us to believe in them, is just stupid.

Nor would it be a particularly good argument for us to believe in their religion.  So what if some lonely god made me from clay to do what it says?

---

Regardless of whether there is a god or is not a god, the tendency of children to give purpose to natural phenomena and to imagine shit is a fact. 

And this fact makes the existence of a godly imprint more probable than not. I'll just say it again, the appearance of design and of what resembles the imprints of a supreme architect everywhere around us does make his existence more probable than not.

It doesn't, but it's pointless to argue with you on articles of faith - isn't it.  

None of that has anything to do with children ascribing purpose to natural phenomena.  When my kids say that chickens are for laying eggs, there's no if or only if a god exists, or because a god exists.

It's a statement about chickens. They're for laying eggs. How do we know? Well, look, there they go again, laying eggs. Are chickens not for laying eggs if there is no god and no godprint, in your estimation?

---

Consider this alterative.

Children imagine things.
Children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.
Children have trouble with difficult concepts, concepts like a generational natural teleology.

Because children imagine things, and because children have trouble with difficult concepts, when they seek to explain how the teleology they observe exists, they imagine a fairy that made it that way. A great and powerful fairy that..somehow, always ends up being like them. My kids could tell you aaaaaalllll about the chicken god. Whenever they tell me about any of the gods they imagine, I'm warmed by how much their expliots remind me of them....but also proud that they are communicating content about purpose to me, real or percieved. They're toying with the idea. A learning game with an imaginary friend. A friend they've never met, but describe by exploring further observations about chickens, in this case - projection and modeling. They're building a worldview. They themselves are the architects. Brains at play.

So, with semantics of probability in mind..which do you think is the more probable explanation for why my kids do that, and why they do that in that way? A brain at play - or an all powerful magician?

[R00tKiT]

They're toying with the idea.  A learning game with an imaginary friend.  A friend they've never met, but describe by exploring further observations about chickens, in this case - projection and modeling.  They're building a worldview.  They themselves are the architects.  Brains at play.

And is reality perceived by anything else than brain at play? Plain and simple, you are advocating for some hardcore solipsism, any inference one draws from the observable somehow became toying with fairies......... Is reality anything else but an agreed-upon imagination of mature adults who say about themselves they have no trouble with difficult concepts?
You are doing inference right now. You only saw a handful of people typing words on their keyboards then click on "post thread/reply", and then inferred that to me.

In our life we observe that precise operations and beautiful architecture only comes from conscious processes. But the sunset, laws of QM and GR, why not blind princesses ....

Consider two meshing gears....

Regardless of whether their manufacturer exists or not, they transmit torque to one another,

Regardless of whether their manufacturer exists or not, their toothed parts beautifully fit each other allow rotation,

In a world without gears manufacturers, gears will still transmit torque...............

So, with semantics of probability in mind..which do you think is the more probable explanation for why my kids do that, and why they do that in that way?  A brain at play - or an all powerful magician?

You are misrepresenting my argument here. I am talking about a general, well-established tendency among children to reason telologically, not some mind game of a handful of kids. And being able to understand "difficult concepts", whichever they are, isn't really a replacement of teleology. No matter how accurate and sophisticated the description of some particular phenomenon, there is always this missing part of why the whole thing took place. I gave ample examples to clarify this in almost all my threads .. I can eat my dinner, or, as you people say, do mundane things, whereas these things are extremely complicated to follow when you look closely, the processes of mastication and digestion can easily fill books of careful explanations. And even if you are clever enough to grasp all these explanations.. they will never get you to me, being responsible for swallowing the meal.. you will never reach the conclusion that the whole thing was just me eating dinner.

[The Grand Nudger]

The general, well established tendency of children to think teleologically could be a cultural or behavioral tick entirely unrelated to whether there is any purpose in natural phenomena, let alone whether or not there is any god in the universe. It very often is. Kids come up with all sorts of what-fors that describe no credible view of reality. Or, that same tendency could be on account of an accurate perception by the child of a natural teleology which they observe and is present.

Let me ask you an equivalent question. Did you know that we take shits? Even children take shits. How do you explain that, if there's no Shit God?

Regardless of whether their manufacturer exists or not, their toothed parts beautifully fit each other allow rotation,

In a world without gears manufacturers, gears will still transmit torque...............

yes...exactly this, yes, and in a world without Shit God, people still take shits. Similarly, in a world without your god, children have a general, well established tendency to ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.

I say that's a brain at play. I say that maybe they think that way because things are that way. I say they sometimes imagine shit. I say they struggle with difficult concepts even when they aren;t imagining shit. You say no, none of that is the explanation....gotta be an all powerful magician. None of this stuff, about people doing something, explains why people do something. Nothing less than the author of creation is to blame for whatever it is kids do, or think, or imagine. All powerful magician is a more likely explanation for why kids do something..than any fact about kids or what they do or why.

I think that you're doing a disservice to god, again.

If what you're telling us, above, is that you can think of no satisfying explanation for absolutely anything, then that's too bad, I guess you'll have to be stuck with no satisfying explanation for anything, plugging that gap in your own knowledge with the same fairies that children to invent to explain how chickens came to be for laying eggs.