Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 27, 2014, 13:19 (3409 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Thank you for another excellent reply. Speculation that this universe is the consequence of logical planning by a universal intelligence that has existed forever and about which we know nothing does not advance the discussion, because, bluntly, we have no idea what we are talking about. I too feel we can only use what we know, and what we know is that we and the universe exist at the moment (assuming we are not an illusion).
DAVID: This misses the point that the information (science-discovered laws of how the universe functions) which runs the universe and creates life cannot arise by chance. Information that requires specific planned action go occur can come only from a thinking consciousness. This is not speculation. It is logic.-By splitting my post up, you are missing the logical thread that binds the sections together. Here you are stating an opinion as if it were fact (“cannot arise by chance”). You and I cannot believe that the information could arise by chance. That is as far as we can go.-dhw: Here is the logic: something cannot come from nothing. Something must have existed for ever (= a first cause). We don't know what that something might be. If our universe had a beginning, it is perfectly logical to speculate (a) that the first cause is capable of making universes...
DAVID: Good thinking.
dhw: ...and (b) that ours would not have been its only product during its eternal existence. Eternal production of limitless universes would lessen the odds against one particular combination of matter producing life. Please note: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of belief.-DAVID: Less logical only in that it introduces 'limitless universes', something about which we have no knowledge, to get around the problem of 'chance'. Chance cannot manufacture meaningful information, and you are trying to use large numbers to avoid the problem.-This is the whole point. There are different hypotheses. As an alternative to your single universe (we have no idea if it's single or not) planned by a hypothetical intelligence, I am offering hypothetical unlimited universes, and have traced the logical basis of such a speculation.-dhw: Why is this hypothesis less logical than the following: we don't know what preceded our universe, but our universe contains intelligent life, intelligent life requires planning, and therefore earthly life must have been planned by a form of eternally intelligent life which preceded our universe but did not need planning?

DAVID: With the information we have, this is the only logical solution. It fits the known facts.-You are ignoring the illogicality of the claim that intelligent life requires planning, but intelligent life does not require planning. The known facts are the existence of our universe and ourselves, and nobody knows how life came about or what preceded our universe. So the hypothesis that life is the result of a lucky combination created out of an infinite number of combinations also fits the known facts.