Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 18:15 (3630 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If, as you claim, “everything is energy. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is all there really is”, I don't know why you should cast doubt on the possibility of matter developing “out of formless energy”. What else could it have developed out of if everything is energy?
DAVID: The matter I have been discussing is a highly complex universe that appeared 13.78 billion years ago. A blob of eternal energy does not have the planning ability to do that. It requires a planning consciousness-And how does a blob of eternal energy acquire a planning consciousness? Round and round we go!-dhw: As for consciousness, I can no more describe the process than you can describe how first cause energy acquired consciousness. You can only fall back on the meaningless formula of an uncaused cause, as if somehow energy and consciousness were one and the same thing.
DAVID: I can't imagine anything else to fit the requirement of a first cause. A first cause (FC) must be present, and its attributes can be detected by looking at what it produced, items of specified complexity that require careful integrated planning.-Can you really imagine a form of energy that has always been conscious of itself? I find that just as difficult to imagine as consciousness evolving through ever changing matter, which would also produce the attributes we see. -DAVID: All I can say is your alternative hypothesis is a good try in avoiding the obvious. What we have is too complex (the universe and its life) to simply appear out of nowhere.
dhw: And that is why I have pointed out that if everything is energy, and matter is a form of energy, the alternative I am offering cannot be called something out of nothing (or nowhere).-DAVID: My reasoning is above. Where is the planning in your scenario to create mechanisms of specified complexity in order to work properly?-You keep shifting your line of attack. I was answering your criticism that the alternative scenario represented something out of nothing or nowhere. It doesn't. As far as planning is concerned, I have explained many times that it would come from within countless, ever evolving intelligences working together - which I would suggest is no less imaginable than a single universal know-it-all-and-come-from-nowhere mind.
 
dhw: However, the article on horizontal gene transfer makes it clear (as does the extinction of 99% of all species) that during the process of cooperative innovation things are not always nicely balanced: (quote skipped)
DAVID: But things go back into balance! In balance, out of balance, in balance, and evolutionary innovation is pushed. You are missing the point of a constant flow of change and reorganization. Are you underrating life's DNA and all of the sub-processes That make it work so well with so few genes?-It's a pity you've skipped the quote, which tells us that some experiments work and some don't. That suggests higgledy-piggledy, balanced or unbalanced D-I-Y by the genes themselves rather than the anthropocentric “advanced planning” so dear to your heart.
 
DAVID: Your blind spot in this area has been explained. H-P is required.-Which is like saying that if you plan to make an omelette, you must make a Yorkshire pudding, a shepherd's pie, and a cheesecake as well. (And then throw them away.)