Regression to something (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, September 02, 2011, 22:32 (4809 days ago) @ dhw


> 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.-We will go round and round until we tire. Our consciousness and intelligence is a part of the UI. Somewhere way back in infinite regression there is a something, a first cause, which has always been, not designed, but always present. An eternal UI is that something. Contrarily, if way back there is only eternal matter, what caused it? And how did that inorganic matter figure out how to make consciousness from organic matter? The UI can inject consciousness into humans as a part of the coded advance of evolution, arranged by the UI. I don't care if it is infinitely long ago, that is the only way I can accept a start to the process. I'm not arguing within my arguments. Start with my first premise of a first cause, and all the rest fits together nicely.