Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, December 28, 2014, 19:32 (3408 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.
DAVID: But your speculation is just that. Not logic. I can think of unicorns, which does mean they have any chance of being found in a living state. Or of the orbiting teapot. Just because we can imagine it, does not mean it ever existed. To overcome the problem of not accepting chance as a cause, you introduce the straw man fallacy of large numbers. Of course the answer to the problem of chance is large numbers. BUT, unfortunately, we only know of ONE universe, and I prefer to work with what is known, not what might be imagined.-The analogies of the unicorn and the orbiting teapot are used by atheists to point out that nobody can prove the non-existence of an imaginary God. You have still not grasped the fact that neither of the hypotheses relates to anything “known”, and neither can be proved or disproved. We do not have an explanation of life and the universe. An atheist can argue that in order to overcome the problem of accepting chance as a cause, you introduce the straw man fallacy of an unknown, eternal, supernatural intelligent being, but the atheist prefers to work with what is known, i.e. the material universe, and not what might be imagined. As an agnostic, I see the fallacy in both arguments, and so I refuse to take sides.
 
dhw: You are ignoring the illogicality of the claim that intelligent life requires planning, but intelligent life does not require planning.
DAVID: We are back to the issue of first cause, I think. Your sentence is not clear. -You argue that intelligent life (ours) requires planning, but intelligent life (God's) does not require planning.-DAVID: Either there was something eternal or we have something from nothing. In the past you have accepted a first cause. You don't accept my type of a thinking and planning first cause, but when thinking theistically, you want such an intellect to evolve by chance from energy to a thinking consciousness.-I continue to accept a first cause. As an alternative to an inexplicable, eternal, universal intelligence whose consciousness has no source, I suggest an atheistic form of panpsychism (normally a theistic -ism) in which multiple intelligences have evolved from eternally changing matter.
 
DAVID: You are using chance while saying you don't accept chance. What a dichotomy!-Of course it's a dichotomy. Either there's a god (gods) or there isn't, and everyone, including scientists and theologians, dreams up fantastic, contrasting, flawed, unproven and probably unprovable theories about how we and the universe got here. At times you seem to be blind to the flaws in your own hypothesis, and at others you acknowledge that it requires a leap across the chasm of faith. ALL the hypotheses require that leap, the one no less than the other. That is why I continue to look for answers, am willing to consider all such hypotheses within reason, but remain an agnostic.