Regression to something (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 02, 2011, 18:55 (4809 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If everything has a cause, there must be an uncaused first cause. There cannot be an infinite regression to nothing. -Dhw: You can argue with equal logic, and equal inconsequentiality, that if everything has a cause, there cannot be an uncaused first cause, and so there has to be an infinite regression to something.-DAVID: Exactly. 'Regression to something' equals "first cause" If there is nothing at first, there will be nothing now (Vic Stenger to the contrary).-No, NOT exactly. A regression to something would indeed equal a first cause, but an INFINITE regression to something equals a regression to something to something to something...ad infinitum, i.e. no first cause. I repeat, both arguments are equally logical and equally inconsequential, by which I mean they lead us absolutely nowhere.-Dhw: The 'first cause' argument is a philosophical placebo. 
DAVID: No, it is not. It is a logical concept.-It is a logical concept used as a philosophical placebo.-Dhw: Why not admit that we're confronted by an insoluble mystery, and join me on the fence of the don't-knows-can't-knows? Oh, and beware of Greeks bearing gifts.-DAVID: You are right. The first cause is an 'insoluable mystery', but it must be there lurking in the distant past, and a gift from the Greeks.-That is not what I said, because that presupposes the existence of a first cause, which is what theists seize on in their convoluted attempts to prove the existence of God. Atheists have every right to ask where God came from, and the magic formula "first cause" is meant to remove that crucial question from the discussion. It doesn't. Since you agree that the mystery (i.e. of the unknowable past) is insoluble, logically you should join me on the fence, but you acknowledge that your ultimate position is based on faith, and of course I accept that.-However, now that we're crossing logical swords (only in play, I assure you), let me pursue my initial Wonderland point, because your "first cause" doesn't address it. We agree that our conscious, intelligent mind is so complex that we can't believe it fashioned itself by chance. However, you do believe that there is an immeasurably greater conscious, intelligent mind that was not designed. If in your view complex intelligence is proof of design, how can you then argue that even more complex intelligence is NOT proof of design? Alternatively, if you can believe in a supreme form of intelligence that was not designed, why can you not believe in a lesser form of intelligence that was not designed? This is not a defence of chance, but a question concerning the logic by which you reconcile two diametrically opposed arguments.