Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, December 30, 2014, 03:08 (3406 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw; You wrote above: “Both arguments have no fallacies. They have no proof.” -> dhw: 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. .... That is why your respective conclusions require a leap across the chasm of faith.-You are welcome. You are absolutely correct. In the end it requires 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.
> 
> dhw: 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?-Yes, an eternal consciousness just IS. But your next statement in no way offers an explanation of why life, evolution, intelligence are present in our reality. This is the issue of the necessity for a first cause A first cause just IS. Unless there is no cause and effect.- 
> 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. 
> 
> dhw: I know you do. You prefer a mechanism that “just IS”.-If you accept first cause and therefore contingent events, your scenario of changing matter somehow evolving into consciousness, perhaps by George's 'chance and necessity', is far away from what I can accept as a logical possibility.-
> 
> 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.
> 
> dhw: If there were no flaws, why would you require faith?-No flaws present, but lack of absolute proof of course requires faith. It is faith in a conclusion to the best solution for the current evidence.