consciousness?

[Question Mark]

1. It is likely that it was created because we have never found evidence of cards, or three-story houses, occurring naturally.
2. This is certainly not true of consciousness.

My main argument was not about the evidence of the cards themselves, but rather how they are arranged, i.e. in an organized state. Organization is the key word here, not cards or three-story houses. For example, if you see some cards lying flat on the floor in a disorganized state, you would automatically deduce that it was most likely caused by an accident or by an action with little conscious effort. But, if you saw the same set of cards arranged in the shape of a house (especially considering how they are balanced on top of each other), you would automatically think that most likely there was a plan and a conscious effort behind that arrangement, not an accident.

So what is wrong with extending that same logic to the existence of consciousness as well as our eyes, brains, hearts, intelligence, DNA, etc.?

The problem with applying recognition of design to things like consciousness, eyes, hearts, &c., is that in your card example, we have no known examples of a house of cards being built naturally. Every single example of a house of cards is known by evidence to have been built.
Consciousness however, eyes, brains, hearts, &c., have never been seen to be created, they've only ever been seen to develop through natural means.

We don't recognise design through inductive reasoning in the manner you're suggesting when it comes to recognising design, we recognise design by contrasting things we see with previous examples.
We have no examples of card houses being made naturally. We have no examples of a consciousness being created. Therefore we deduce that both come about from intelligence, and natural means respectively.

In order to say that a consciousness or any other natural thing comes about by intelligent design, one has to demonstrate it, not just say "Well it looks designed".
That's absurd.