Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 21:41 (3614 days ago) @ David Turell

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.-DAVID: 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 the complexity of the universe and of life-You have repeated (how can you possibly show?) over and over your own assumption that first cause energy has always been conscious. Personally, I still can't “imagine” such a colossal single eternal consciousness any more than I can “imagine” how non-conscious first cause energy could transmute itself into matter which gradually evolves its own multiple forms of consciousness. However, I do have the concrete example of zillions of pieces of organic matter, each with its own individual form of consciousness or intelligence, which makes the concept of multiple evolving intelligences easier to “imagine” than that of a single mind capable of creating universes and microbes.-DAVID: 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: Indeed, it is as illogical as that of a consciousness that just IS.-DAVID: We differ. I see the logic of reaching proof beyond a reasonable doubt.-I too can see the logic of believing something that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it seems to me that a hypothesis which cannot be falsified, confirmed by experiment, directly observed, or for which, in your own words, there is no proof, cannot claim to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (See also "Cosmologic philosophy".) -Dhw: I'd have thought the total absence of proof (no-one expects absolute proof) would count as a flaw in any hypothesis, both yours and Dawkins'. You each opt for what you subjectively consider the “best solution”.-DAVID: And what is wrong with that. I hate to be equated with Dawkins, but he and I were bound to agree on something.-This is a lovely answer. Thank you. There is of course nothing wrong with it at all. Nor is there anything wrong with neutrality. I was merely pointing out that your faith is no different from that of the atheists in its irrational choice of explanations. I just wish both sides would acknowledge the flaws in their respective arguments instead of denigrating one another. Blessed are the agnostic peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of reason. (Matthew, 5, 9 - ever so slightly adapted)