Who designed the designer?

[Jayhawker Soule]

OTOH, if you're going to argue that God is not "something", then ...

At issue is the distinction between …

• positing that God is not "something", and
• positing that God is not "some thing".

 

[Sabour]

"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.

Well good for you. Go ahead and prove that he exists.

Actually you have demonstrated your limitıng understanding of what we are talking about.

Your claims are blind cliams, mine are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

- God is everything
- everything needs a cause
- therefore God needs a cause

It's probably best if you abandon your "everything needs a cause" position. You can still believe that God exists and that God created the universe without it, but with it, you end up either implying that God was caused or engaging in special pleading.

 

[Sabour]

- God is everything
- everything needs a cause
- therefore God needs a cause

It's probably best if you abandon your "everything needs a cause" position. You can still believe that God exists and that God created the universe without it, but with it, you end up either implying that God was caused or engaging in special pleading.

Again If you go back to my first reply when, you will see that I said that everything that we OBSERVE needs a cause.

We dont see God neither we observe God

 

[Robert.Evans]

"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.

haha... what a dog!!

 

[Robert.Evans]

- God is everything
- everything needs a cause
- therefore God needs a cause

It's probably best if you abandon your "everything needs a cause" position. You can still believe that God exists and that God created the universe without it, but with it, you end up either implying that God was caused or engaging in special pleading.

When we speak of everything it is to do with the physical. God is without form when you get closer to him.

 

[starlite]

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

As humans our knowlege is very limited....God’s knowledge and wisdom are far above that of anyone else. The prophet Isaiah was inspired to record this statement by God: “‘The thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”—Isaiah 55:8, 9.

Therefore, it is difficult to conceive that God did not need a designer. Faith and not logic is required in the instance. God did explain it all in his Word, the Bible. He tells us that he has always existed and that he created the universe and all things in it...he had it written in a form that we as human can comprehend....what more is needed?

 

[Ouroboros]

Again If you go back to my first reply when, you will see that I said that everything that we OBSERVE needs a cause.

How do you know? You're positing a premise here, but I don't see why it has to be observable to necessitate a cause.

We dont see God neither we observe God

There are other things we can't observe, and aren't we supposed to be able to observe God's actions in this world (indirect observation)? And that goes for our soul, consciousness, end of the universe, and much more as well, we can only observe it second hand or indirectly. For instance, quarks, we can't observe them directly, or Higgs field. If the Higgs field doesn't need a designer, then we have no reason to believe the universe needs one either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again If you go back to my first reply when, you will see that I said that everything that we OBSERVE needs a cause.

We dont see God neither we observe God

We don't observe God? That seems like a very strange thing for someone who believes in divine revelation or miracles to say. If seeing these sorts of indirect effects doesn't count as "observation", then everything else we only observe indirectly (e.g. electrons, quarks) wouldn't count either, would they?

Also, are you arguing that God is the only "unobserved" thing? If you are, I don't see how you could have any rational basis for this position. If not, there could be any number of unobserved things that exist uncaused and are not God.

 

[Ouroboros]

Also, are you arguing that God is the only "unobserved" thing? If you are, I don't see how you could have any rational basis for this position. If not, there could be any number of unobserved things that exist uncaused and are not God.

Yup. For instance, the whole universe at its current state. We see it from only one vantage point, and only the past. Not the current state. Also, we can't observe the smallest things, quarks and such. Or radio waves for that matter.

I never heard that it's only observable things that has a cause. That's a new one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When we speak of everything it is to do with the physical. God is without form when you get closer to him.

So when you say "everything has a cause", you really mean "a specific class of thing has a cause"?

What else is non-physical besides God?

 

[Robert.Evans]

So when you say "everything has a cause", you really mean "a specific class of thing has a cause"?

What else is non-physical besides God?

I will have to answer you this way:

There is the One.
The One becomes Two.
The Two is still the One and is still one.
Everything is part of that One and is that One, but also is not that One, because it is the Two.
So everything that emanates from the One is 'everything' that has a cause.
The One has no cause and just IS.
This is seen in conceptual images within the higher consciousness (in God). It is physical in a spiritual sense, as there is a spiritual body. When we say physical, we think of us, flesh. There are many images and replications that proceed from the One through the Two to become us.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We don't exist literally, we are just conscious thought, pictorial images, expressions of higher-consciousness, which is us.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That question is one of the reasons I don't bother with "god." What designed the designer? And what designed the designer's designer? It's a question without end.

No its not. There is an existence, and then change. Before the change there was no change, There has to be something not nothing. You should think on it... I think. We must come from somewhere

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will have to answer you this way:

There is the One.
The One becomes Two.
The Two is still the One and is still one.
Everything is part of that One and is that One, but also is not that One, because it is the Two.
So everything that emanates from the One is 'everything' that has a cause.
The One has no cause and just IS.
This is seen in conceptual images within the higher consciousness (in God). It is physical in a spiritual sense, as there is a spiritual body. When we say physical, we think of us, flesh. There are many images and replications that proceed from the One through the Two to become us.

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? You said it was, but there's nothing relevant to what I asked in it.

We don't exist literally, we are just conscious thought, pictorial images, expressions of higher-consciousness, which is us.

Why would something that doesn't exist literally need a literal cause?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? You said it was, but there's nothing relevant to what I asked in it.


Why would something that doesn't exist literally need a literal cause?

You will have t rephrase your question please if that is not sufficient. I thought is quite simple.
Something does exist literally but not as we think of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You will have t rephrase your question please if that is not sufficient. I thought is quite simple.

All right. Maybe this will get my point across better:

You said that your argument about things needing causes only applies to "physical" things. You also said that God is a non-physical thing. What I want to know is whether you're arguing that God is the only non-physical thing, or if you're acknowledging the possibility that all sorts of non-physical things might exist, which might not need causes.

Something does exist literally but not as we think of it.

Well, which us it: do we exist literally or not?

 

[Orias]

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?

Why of course the god before it.

 

[Matityahu ben Avraham]

hmmm. I don't think the first Cause argument is that anything that exists and is complex must have a cause. It certainly isn't the argument of Aquinas.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

hmmm. I don't think the first Cause argument is that anything that exists and is complex must have a cause. It certainly isn't the argument of Aquinas.

It is the argument of many who put forth a first cause however.