Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 13, 2014, 15:53 (3633 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: May I take it that you accept the irrationality of BOTH hypotheses, and that the hypothesis of consciousness evolving from ever changing matter is not something from nothing?-The only thing we agree upon is energy in some state as a first cause. One of the things we both know is that the source cause of consciousness is unknown. A thought is not matter and how it arises from an intact brain is a matter of great controversy, which his why Nagel wrote his recent book. And I stick with the position that creating a universe requires planning in advance and only a conscious planner can do that, not a chance event.
 
> 
> dhw: Thank you for continuing to mull. I do not “want few limits”. I have an open mind, but have proposed autonomy as a logical explanation for the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution (whether started by God or not). You, however, do want many limits, because you regard an autonomous mechanism as a threat to your anthropocentric interpretation of your God's approach to evolution.-Not a threat, just illogical, once it is accepted that everything is under conscious planning.
> 
> dhw: ...we agnostics are used to all the hot air from the pots and kettles, and we go on dispensing tolerance and lovingkindness to those who know as little as we do but know it so much more decisively.
> DAVID: Understood. Know-nothingism is well recognized.
> 
> dhw: But frequently only in relation to those whose beliefs differ from one's own.-No question, you are a very sweet and loving man, if limited in conceptualizing God.