Posted by colo(u)rofjanuary [66.27.227.123 - bak-66-27-227-123.bak.rr.com] on 22 March 2003 at 22.54.50 ZuluTime:

I was talking to a christian earlier and they directed me to this article...just wanted to see what you guys had to say about it (sorry if it's long. by the way, this article is posted on www.hotcocoa.org):

March 06, 2003

CREATIVITY OF MAN PERTAINING TO THE MEANING OF LIFE
     By: Christopher Stadler

     Preface

In pondering what it is to be truly creative, I have come to the conclusion that man is not truly creative. Man can only rearrange or discover things that exist. Logic and matter have both been here since man's creation.

This is a short essay based on logic and objectivity. I will not appeal to you if you disagree on non-logical or non-objective grounds. The basis of this essay is logic and reason. We can only work from what we all know is true or else we have no common ground. Metaphysics is another subject.

Someone may say that, because I'm a Christian, I can't address issues objectively. I hope that you will not see anything in what I write that is not the most logical conclusion based on the facts. You may be able to say that what I say is "not necessarily" true. I don't object to that because there are quite a few things that are "not necessarily true", but that are, by far, the best explanation. However, I don't think you will be able to say, with confidence, that what I have written is probably not true.

Man's Lack of Creativity

What man calls creativity is a collection of well put together ideas that already exist. A creative problem solver is someone who is able to find uncommon ways to overcome a problem to which the solution isn't always obvious. An artist is someone who uses degrees of the building blocks (things they've seen, ideas they have) to express something.

A new concept is just a compilation of the same old building blocks using the same old good logic. The result is a new compilation or rearrangement of existing components using intelligence, not a really creation. If man were a creative being, we would start with nothing and have new compounds. Instead we have to compile existing chemicals to make new compounds.

Man can't even imagine something unless he's first experienced it. A man who was born blind from birth couldn't imagine the color blue, No matter how you described it to him. There is no point of reference for him. For humans, ideas are discovered, not created.

The reality is that we really don't have to be creative. It's a good thing, too, because man's brain (not to mention other abilities) is too small to deal with a reality that excluded pre-existing creation. Imagine if we had to create artwork out of nothing (not even canvas paints or scenery). What if you had to write a life story with no pen, paper or even a life? What if we were in space? No, actually, space would be something. Imagine if you were nowhere and had to create somewhere. We just don't have the ability.

Here is a test to this theory. If I'm right, and we aren't truly creative, we should be able to trace every implementation (new idea or invention) from the implementation itself all the way back to its basic building blocks (basic properties). For further clarification, let's look at gravity.

Gravity, A Case Study

It can be argued that we can only break things down so much before we have different bases for their existence. Take gravity, for instance. Is gravity based on itself? Does it not rest on anything else? It's a basic property of the universe, but is it subject to the universe? Are there other properties that have their own bases and don't rest on anything else?

This is the kind of building block I'm talking about. If man really were creative, he would be able to imagine another basic property, if not create it. Go ahead and try to invent a new basic property (maybe a property that an imaginary universe would have that ours doesn't). It doesn't have to be real. It just has to make sense. When you've made up your new property of the universe, see if it breaks down. If it does, it's not a basic property.

You can imagine things like anti-gravity, not because you've seen anti-gravity, but because you've observed flight and you've combined it with other ideas. But, can you understand how anti-gravity can work? If you can, it's only because you can explain it with natural properties.

Application, The Next Step

The next step is the application of that concept to human issues. What about our need to survive. Is that something we invented? If so, how did we invent something that complex and how does it break down? In other words, if we have a survival instinct that we invented, we should be able to trace it logically back to its building blocks. If we can't, we have no reason to believe that we invented it. We have more of a reason to think that it's a property. Did the universe invent gravity? Of course not, it's a property.

That's not to say that we can't have a man-made thing without knowing how it works. Most people don't know how a computer works, but they can use it. There are some construction methods used in ancient times, that we can't make sense of today, yet we have them. So, it may be argued that man may have imagined (used logic to come up with) the need to survive millions of years ago and now we don't know why, we just need to survive.

However, this is not a guessing game and experience tells us otherwise. Rocks have properties (e.g. hardness). We don't say that the rock contrived its hardness. We have intelligence. We don't say that we contrived our own intelligence, so it's not necessary to guess that survival would be an idea that we invented.

What about more complex concepts? Try to break down the evolution of the concept of love. How about the concept of desire. What about morality? These are basic human properties (if not needs).

Evolution explains properties this way, "We have them, so they must have evolved." I will believe you if you can explain "why". How did purpose come from a rock? To everything scientific there is a logical explanation. Science should not use the word "chance" as an excuse whenever a theory seems to be impossible. If it seems to be impossible, it is not credible and should be rejected by science and left to the evolutionist faithful to deposit their faith and hope. That is why evolution is not scientific. Do millions of years do the work of an engineer? Like I said, this is not a guessing game. Let's move on.

Why There Must Be A Meaning of Life

To summarize what we've covered so far, man cannot create anything, even an idea, without being able to imagine how it works. Man is not creative enough to invent a new basic concept, as we have seen. Man must apply basic concepts (which are sometimes complex themselves) to form complex concepts. You must have a basis in reality that traces back to a basic property. We can only work with what we have.

You see now, why the existence of a need like the purpose in life mandates the existence of a purpose in life. If you think man could invent something like purpose, you must be able to explain how such a complex and advanced concept could trace back to the basic building blocks. You could say that it traces back to an emotional need, but all you're saying is that purpose is an emotional need. Why do we have it?

The Meaning of Life

The idea of a purpose or goal necessitates a personality. Only living things have purpose. Why would we think that purpose can come from non-living things? The only other option that we know of is chance (as large a leap of faith as that is, it's really the only other explanation).

A funny thing about chance is that, since everything follows the path of least resistance (unless acted upon by a purposeful intelligence) things tend to go toward disorder and randomness. Here's an example. When you build a new computer (no software installed at all) and you try to power it up nothing happens. What if you turned on that same computer and an operating system booted up? Would you believe that it programmed itself? Of course not. No matter how sure you were that nobody installed the operating system (even an operating system that you've never seen before), you know that one is installed, so someone must have developed it. You would not accept the fact that there wasn't intelligence behind it because you are aware of the high level of order and purpose that it represents.

Purposeful existence, it would seem, requires a pre-existing purpose. If that's not the case, please cite an example of when it hasn't been the case. If you can even acknowledge purpose, you have a living, intelligent thing. The source of that purpose would be a creator. You need to locate the source of that purpose to find out why you were created. Nice ideas are just that, nice ideas. We require reasonable proof.

To Propagators of Evolution

To those who would use evolution to explain why life has no meaning. You should provide evidence for your theory. You will not continue forever to be believed by faith. Reason and logic are encouraged. Chance and faith are not acceptable in science.