Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, December 29, 2014, 00:45 (3408 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You have still not grasped the fact that neither of the hypotheses relates to anything “known”, and neither can be proved or disproved.-I grasped it well enough. -> dhw: 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.-Both arguments have no fallacies. They have no proof. That is a major difference in meaning. Both atheists and I differ in that they make the claim that chance can do it, and to me it is obvious that chance cannot do it. I look to God as the best explanation, as one wants an explanation. You are unwilling to accept any explanation as you seem to want absolute proof, which we will never have.-
> 
> dhw: You argue that intelligent life (ours) requires planning, but intelligent life (God's) does not require planning.-As a first cause, God just IS.-> 
> dhw: 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.-And I totally reject that as an impossible chance mechanism.-> 
> dhw: 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.-That is where faith is required.->dhw: 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.-You see flaws I do not see. I'll take my choices on faith as the best explanation-> dhw: 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.-Exactly. As I've said you are content with nothing but absolute truth, which we will never have. I respect your wish to stay with agnosticism. To each our own requirements.