Who designed the designer?

[Ouroboros]

I think God/Brahman does not exist in time (but time is part of the creation) so we can say He always existed.

Or she.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

NO. By definition God is always there. He is God. This is God.

And please appreciate if you can you the reply button below my answer so that I would get a notification that you answered

Okay this still doesn't explain the flaw in the argument that complex things need designers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because based on our observations of things, everything needs a cause to exist.

If everything needs a cause to exist, and God does not need a cause, then God is not part of "everything". IOW, God does not exist.

 

[idav]

Needing god to be the ultimate designer is extreme humanizing of the deity,

 

[Ouroboros]

If everything needs a cause to exist, and God does not need a cause, then God is not part of "everything". IOW, God does not exist.

Or another way of putting it:

If a thing that exists needs a designer (or cause), but the designer doesn't need it, then the designer is not a thing, or in another word, the designer is a no-thing. God is then nothing.

God as the Ultimate Nothing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Needing god to be the ultimate designer is extreme humanizing of the deity,

Yup. It's an extreme anthropomorphizing of God. Making God human. Describing God as a designer is to compare God to human affairs, behaviors, and techniques. Actually, it's comparing God to the old societies where a person molded or formed pots and weapons with their hands, and not really comparing it to modern designers using CAD/CAM or automated design software. So it's really making God to a version of how people designed things 100 years ago. Humans can do smarter solutions now.

 

[Willamena]

It all comes down to chaos and chance. Somethingness* cannot come from something, for something is apart of somethingness. And because something cannot both exist and not exist, something came from nothing.

Unless you are to say there has always been somethingness, but that only makes mathematical sense looking at time backwards, that too would be claiming an uncaused cause.

Somethingness* = The existence of existence.

But then wherefore come chaos and chance?

 

[Thief]

God is a 'self-made' god.
go figure.

 

[Ouroboros]

But then wherefore come chaos and chance?

From my kids. I'm certain of it.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

God is a 'self-made' god.
go figure.

When many believers say God shows them things based on their daily lives and speaks to them exactly how I think to myself, it sure seems like it...

 

[Bunyip]

But then wherefore come chaos and chance?

Why would chaos and chance need to come from somewhere?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

OTOH, if you're going to argue that God is not "something", then the implication that God is "nothing", making you an atheist.

Very clever I think it holds theologically true as well.

Though, I do not call "nothing" God, but "nothing" is above God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think God/Brahman does not exist in time (but time is part of the creation) so we can say He always existed.

Why does God/Brahman exist? I don't know and have no clues.

Perhaps the abstract needn't reason.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But then wherefore come chaos and chance?

I have asked this too and the question has made me redefine "chaos" (and I use chance as a proponent of it but not only a proponent of chaos). Not exactly redefine it, but re-interpreting the definition. Chaos and nothingness are one, and as concepts they are inconceivable. Nothingness is literally not a thing, and thus so is chaos. Chaos therefore never 'came', and never 'was', for nothingness can never 'be', however we spring from it.

 

[Ouroboros]

When many believers say God shows them things based on their daily lives and speaks to them exactly how I think to myself, it sure seems like it...

Right.

God is to most people a reflection of themselves. Their own views of life and right/wrong. Their own views on how the world works. God is their own imagination of how things are.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have asked this too and the question has made me redefine "chaos" (and I use chance as a proponent of it but not only a proponent of chaos). Not exactly redefine it, but re-interpreting the definition. Chaos and nothingness are one, and as concepts they are inconceivable. Nothingness is literally not a thing, and thus so is chaos. Chaos therefore never 'came', and never 'was', for nothingness can never 'be', however we spring from it.

Another aspect is that there must some order too. Total chaos, total randomness, can never stabilize to anything. The way I see it is that there's a balance between chaos and order. (Chaos v Cosmos)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why would chaos and chance need to come from somewhere?

Without that question, one would get the misconception that chaos is similar to the concept of an always existing God, when chaos is actually never-existing, yet at the same time it bounds us. We are a deck of cards of determinism on a tabletop of chaos. At any point the cards can simply disappear, things could stop making sense, or things that currently don't make sense could make sense and vice versa.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Another aspect is that there must some order too. Total chaos, total randomness, can never stabilize to anything. The way I see it is that there's a balance between chaos and order. (Chaos v Cosmos)

Ah, the end of my last post would have been better suited for a response to this post.

I do believe in order, I am a hard determinist. I believe in what the ancient Greeks called logos, that is basically the mathematics and logic of our universe's functions. But I believe this logos is tied together with a rope of total randomness that doesn't exist and could at any time for no reason just rip.

That randomness is of course Chaos. And I think it's best to think of Chaos as an infinite amount of potential energy embodied in the absence of itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah, the end of my last post would have been better suited for a response to this post.

LOL! I thought it was a response to mine, but I couldn't figure out what you were saying.

I do believe in order, I am a hard determinist. I believe in what the ancient Greeks called logos, that is basically the mathematics and logic of our universe's functions. But I believe this logos is tied together with a rope of total randomness that doesn't exist and could at any time for no reason just rip.

Somethin' like that.

There's a balance between them two. That's what I think.

That randomness is of course Chaos. And I think it's best to think of Chaos as an infinite amount of potential energy embodied in the absence of itself.

Yes. Chaos as infinite potential energy, that's how I see it too.

 

[Iti oj]

humans designed the designer.