If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[Whateverist]

Why word it like that? Of course the capacity for subjective experience is in the universe. Where else could it be.

It could be nonexistent, and that it is not is significant.

I don't know that it could be otherwise, though I assume the capacity for communicating ideas about subjective experiences did not exist on this planet until (to be safe) about 5 million years ago. I would still think that subjective experience was wide spread on the planet in lots of organisms long before that. But even before the first forms of life arose I would think the potential for life and subjective experience existed in potential just as the potential for rust to form on iron existed before an earlier generation of giant stars ever cooked any iron up. What we know now feeds back on our knowledge of what was possible in potential before the necessary conditions existed.

It also suggests that it does not owe its existence to the necessary conditions of the physical world

The intended implication is that since qualia are part of the natural world, there's no "special sauce." And since qualia are incidental to our mechanical understanding of the natural world, that mechanical understanding is insufficient in a very important way.

Of course there is a difference between understanding that qualia exist and therefore are supported by an adequate theory of everything on the one hand, and on the other hand, being able to actually explain everything that exists in terms of the theory we currently have. I'm not sure how many people believe the theories we currently have are entirely adequate. Of course, I do sometimes encounter on these very forums a kind of naive expectation that science can do just that or, where it can't, will be able to shortly. My own intuition is that the everything we would hope to understand will always exceed our reach.