(December 24, 2015 at 6:10 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:(December 24, 2015 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote: Right, the infinite regress leads to something that must be outside of time and without need to be caused. The question is: is it more reasonable that this is an intelligence or unintelligence? I think that it is more reasonable to think it is an intelligence. Nobody wins in the infinite regress, but I think the naturalists/atheists are in a slightly worse position.
Nope. Sorry, buddy. This still leaves you with either infinite regress or special pleading.
If something outside of space and time is required in order to create space and time itself, then something outside of the designer should have to create the designer, and something outside of that creator should have to create it, and so on. We're back at infinite regress.
If Gaud is the only thing that does not require a cause outside of itself, that is once again special pleading.
Thinking it's "more reasonable" to believe the Causeless Cause is intelligent rather than unintelligent is merely an unsupported argument from incredulity. Without good evidence, it's rarely useful to choose to believe one thing over another.
You don't win in an infinite regress. Nobody does. Either intelligent force was eternal, or matter was eternal. Neither makes sense, and matter being eternal is no more reasonable than intelligence.
