Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, January 01, 2015, 13:52 (3614 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Can you tell me how the zillions appeared? -Of course not. You talked of an eternally conscious first cause being the only way one could “imagine” life and the universe coming into being, and I was merely pointing out that I couldn't “imagine” ANY source of consciousness, but at least multiple intelligences were easier to “imagine” because that's what we see all around us.
 
DAVID: Your answer will be that life started rather quickly after the Earth formed and cooled, surprisingly within a universe that also seems to have appeared out of nothing.-In this hypothesis, which I see as no more unlikely than your own, the universe did not appear out of nothing but out of the constant interplay between mindless eternal energy and matter (first cause).-DAVID: And then those microbes, for some unknown reason decided to overcome being unicellular and suddenly developed complex multicellularity from simple precursors about 540 million years ago.-Evolutionists believe that's what happened. In my hypothesis, microbes (which many scientists say have their own form of intelligence) took that decision, whereas in yours a mind as vast as a universe delicately manoeuvred them into their different combinations or preprogrammed them with special software which also preprogrammed a zillion other tricks, innovations, lifestyles, all the way up to (but not including) humans, who would need an extra dabble. In my hypothesis, that vast mind may exist, but it may have given those microbes the intelligence to do their own experimenting. -DAVID: Your answer above answers nothing. I guess 'multiple evolving intelligences' created so much conglomerate intelligence they did it all by themselves. There is either chance or guided development, no other possibility exists.-The source of intelligence, whether divine or microbial, remains unknown and unknowable. No hypothesis can offer us a satisfactory answer. Once we have intelligence, whether divine or evolved, we have guided development - guided either by your God, or by the inventive intelligence of the different life forms.-dhw: 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. 
DAVID: Nothing wrong with neutrality. But Agnostics lack the willingness to reason to the best solution to the question.-By which you mean agnostics lack the willingness to accept what you consider to be the best solution to the question. I am willing to consider every possible solution, but so far I have not come across one that I can label “the best”.