Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 29, 2014, 21:23 (3408 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.
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.-DAVID: Both arguments have no fallacies. They have no proof. That is a major difference in meaning. -It was you who used the word “fallacy”, and my response was an atheist inversion of your argument, as quoted above.
 
DAVID: You are unwilling to accept any explanation as you seem to want absolute proof, which we will never have.-You wrote above: “Both arguments have no fallacies. They have no proof.” Thank you. There is no proof of an eternally conscious intelligence in charge of the universe, and no proof of chance being capable of putting together the ingredients for life, evolution and consciousness. Both theories are pure conjecture, and so it is patently absurd to argue that I am looking for “absolute proof” when the fact is that there is no proof whatsoever. That is why your respective conclusions require a leap across the chasm of faith.-dhw: You argue that intelligent life (ours) requires planning, but intelligent life (God's) does not require planning.
DAVID: As a first cause, God just IS.-The word "God" has too many associations, so let's say "Eternal consciousness just IS." 
Life just is, evolution just happens, intelligence just evolves, it's how Nature works. You would not accept such a statement, would you? It's a cop-out just like your own.
 
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.
DAVID: And I totally reject that as an impossible chance mechanism. -I know you do. You prefer a mechanism that “just IS”.-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.
DAVID: You see flaws I do not see. I'll take my choices on faith as the best explanation.-If there were no flaws, why would you require faith?-*************-I shall try to respond to other posts tomorrow.