Who designed the designer?

[Gnostic Seeker]

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?

 

[Sabour]

God doesn't need to be created for God is the First and The Last. He is God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God was created by circular logic.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

One-answer doesn't what you said invalidate the premise of first cause: that complex things need a designer?

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

This has been addressed over and over again.

The First Cause argument does not (or, at least, should not) claim that everything requires a cause. Rather, it posits that all natural phenomenon are caused. If this is accepted as true, either (a) there is no first cause, or (b) the first cause must be preternatural.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Positing that all things are caused still puts one in a similar paradox though. Was the designer caused? If not, why is the designer the sole exception?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Positing that all things are caused still puts one in a similar paradox though. Was the designer caused? If not, why is the designer the sole exception?

Because it's convenient.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Positing that all things are caused still puts one in a similar paradox though.

No, it does not.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I explained above how it does.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I explained above how it does.

No, you simple claimed to do so. There is no paradox. (Perhaps you do not understand what the word means.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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.

 

[Sabour]

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

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

One-answer: including the designer. Sum also made a good point about ex nihilo.

 

[Sabour]

One-answer: including the designer. Sum also made a good point about ex nihilo.

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

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

That's why the argument that something complex has to have something more complex as an explanation for its existence is flawed.

A simple algorithm can create a very intricate and complex pattern (Mandlebrot as an example), which shows that simplicity can create complexity. Besides, complexity means in my view something that contains a tremendous amount of simple things that all together become too overwhelming to comprehend. Like a complex computer program, it can be done simpler, and it can be broken down in its simple components, but all together the routines and parts are not so simple anymore.

 

[Bunyip]

Putting the most complex first is just illogical. Simple first, complex later tends to be how the universe works.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.