Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 00:23 (3406 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not object to the concept of a first cause. I object to your insisting that the first cause is CONSCIOUS. If the first cause is energy, that does not mean consciousness, and to say it just IS conscious is as much a cop-out as to say it just evolved consciousness.-I have shown you over and over that the only way one can imagine the progress from a beginning of eternal energy, is to assume it is a consciousness form of energy capable and necessary to plan for the complexity of the universe and of life. 
and necessity', is far away from what I can accept as a logical possibility.[/i]
> 
> dhw: Indeed. it is as illogical as that of a consciousness that just IS. There is no logical hypothesis, which is why they all require faith.-We differ. I see the logic of reaching proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> dhw: I'd have thought that total absence of proof (no-one expects absolute proof) would count as a flaw in any hypothesis, including yours and Dawkins'. You each opt for what you subjectively consider the “best solution”.-And what is wrong with that. I hate to be equated with Dawkins, but he and I were bound to agree on something.