Who designed the designer?

[The Sum of Awe]

humans designed the designer.

then who was phone?

 

[Iti oj]

then who was phone?

The great Satan that butchers my posts

 

[Glaurung]

First cause arguments usually employ the premise that complex things like the universe need a designer and cannot simply just exist. Well then let us ask- would not the designer be much more complex, assuming one for the sake of debate? Who designed the designer? Did that designer also need a designer?

God is usually stated to be absolutely simple, he has no parts and not actually composed of anything but himself. God is said not to so much exist, but to be existence itself.

So asking what gave rise to God is the same thing as saying what gave rise to source of existence itself, as God is existence. God is the non-contingent source of all contingent things thus it becomes a meaningless question. So you can either accept on faith a non-contingent source outside of time and causality, or you can accept on faith an infinite regression of time and causality.

Either way, both have problems but there's no real answers.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

God is usually stated to be absolutely simple, he has no parts and not actually composed of anything but himself. God is said not to so much exist, but to be existence itself.

So asking what gave rise to God is the same thing as saying what gave rise to source of existence itself, as God is existence. God is the non-contingent source of all contingent things thus it becomes a meaningless question. So you can either accept on faith a non-contingent source outside of time and causality, or you can accept on faith an infinite regression of time and reality.

Either way, both have problems but there's no real answers.

Ah, but the idea of reality and time in infinite regress have one thing going for them that various god claims don't: they're observable and testable. How can anything exist outside of reality?

 

[Glaurung]

Ah, but the idea of reality and time in infinite regress have one thing going for them that various god claims don't: they're observable and testable.

You may be able to demonstrate that particular deity concepts are implausible, but I find it highly unlikely that you can demonstrate that an infinite regress of material reality is more plausible than a non-contingent source.

How can anything exist outside of reality?

By existing outside reality, I mean to say outside the confines of material causality. God is the source of it.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

You may be able to demonstrate that particular deity concepts are implausible, but I find it highly unlikely that you can demonstrate that an infinite regress of material reality is more plausible than a non-contingent source.

Except, as I said, we've got evidence for material reality

[/QUOTE]By existing outside reality, I mean to say outside the confines of material causality. God is the source of it.[/QUOTE]

Then maybe you can clear up the problem of God needing a designer...

 

[chinu]

If an eternal designer can just simply exist- why not the universe?

Okay, both exists, I agree.
Now, do you agree ?

 

[Glaurung]

Except, as I said, we've got evidence for material reality

Indeed. We agree that material causality exists, and that our evidence for this assertion is sufficient. But that in itself is not an argument that material reality is non-contingent and infinitely regressing. Nothing bound within material causality has these attributes, thus it's a leap to demand that we must nonetheless accept infinite regression of material contingency just because you don't like the alternative has having "no evidence".

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Indeed. We agree that material causality exists, and that our evidence for this assertion is sufficient. But that in itself is not an argument that material reality is non-contingent and infinitely regressing. Nothing bound within material causality has these attributes, thus it's a leap to demand that we must nonetheless accept infinite regression of material contingency just because you don't like the alternative has having "no evidence".

How is it anymore a leap than accepting a designer with absolutely no emperical evidence? You also still haven't addressed the actual issue this thread pertains to.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Okay, both exists, I agree.
Now, do you agree ?

How can the designer be both the universe and it's alleged designer?

 

[chinu]

How can the designer be both the universe and it's alleged designer?

For example,
Like.. WHILE playing his own designed Video-Game, A Video-Game-Designer becomes the character/role in his own designed Video-game.

 

[Glaurung]

How is it anymore a leap than accepting a designer with absolutely no emperical evidence?

I'm not saying it's a bigger leap, but that it is nonetheless as much as an unprovable proposition as the existence of a non-contingent source. No matter which way you go, you are adopting a position on faith based on your own philosophical leanings.

You also still haven't addressed the actual issue this thread pertains to.

But I have by pointing out that God is by definition non-contingent and thus has no source but himself. How something that exists by its own virtue of existing have come into existence itself is a non-applicable question because it assumes a dependence on material causality that it creates in the first place. It must by logical necessity transcend it.

Remember by God, I simply mean the source of material causality, this need not be understood as anything resembling the Abrahamic deity. Of course I can't prove it, my position is that it's no more irrational or faith based to posit, than the idea of an infinite chain of contingent events which itself has obvious logical problems.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

For example,
Like.. WHILE playing his own designed Video-Game, A Video-Game-Designer becomes the character/role in his own designed Video-game.

I don't see how that answers the problem of the designer needing a designer for the initial premise of first cause to be true, but its a good and interesting answer to my other question. If I could give frubals currently I would.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

But I have by pointing out that God is by definition non-contingent and thus has no source but himself.

Great, now we have circular logic :/

 

[Glaurung]

Great, now we have circular logic :/

No it's not. The existence of a non-contingent starting point is the logical necessity of rejecting infinite causality. It's not circular, it's inescapable unless you assert everything just always was. Which is as arbitrary of an answer as mine.

All you have is opinion, that's all anybody really has here. So either establish infinite causality as "more plausible", or admit that it's just your opinion that it is and we can move on.

 

[chinu]

Well then let us ask- would not the designer be much more complex, assuming one for the sake of debate? Who designed the designer? Did that designer also need a designer?

Why do you think that an innocent person cannot be tangled into complex things ?

 

[Norrin-6-]

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

"By definition God is always there."

But "God" is just a variable. I too have an immortal friend but it is not God.

There is a carrot stick called "Humphrey" which by definition has always, and will always exist. Humphrey is my friend. Not only is he the first and the last, but he is also a figment of my dog Spot's imagination.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ah, but the idea of reality and time in infinite regress have one thing going for them that various god claims don't: they're observable and testable. How can anything exist outside of reality?

Depends on what you call reality.. haha
Perhaps God has changed form now, and you are looking at him!!

 

[Sabour]

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

Again, you are applying the laws that we apply on the creation towards the Creator, this is where you fail.

The laws we know apply only to the creation.

 

[Sabour]

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.

You are rıght, God is not part of everything because God is everythiıng. God is the First and the Last