Arguing for the existence of God how do you answer: the Designer needs a designer

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjack2222
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kjack2222

Guest
I’ve heard it argued that the universe can’t come from nothing - something with such functional complexity has a Designer. The response to this then is that the Designer also has a functional mind, one that has to be more complex than it’s creation, so then doesn’t the Designer need a designer (“if nothing comes from nothing, and God comes from nothing, then it follows that God is nothing”)? It makes this argument (complexly designed universe = Designer God) for the existence of God circular. How would you answer this?
 
It’s an ingenious response to the argument. I don’t know of any way to rebut (nor do we have to). The standard view is that God is a necessary being, and thus COULD not be designed, but that is a dodge, not a response to the point about God needing a designer. After all, the atheist could just claim that the whole universe is a necessary being, in that case, and avoid the need to hypothesize a designer God.
 
It’s an infinite loop, the chicken or the egg type of question. Another great argument is the “watch/computer on a desert island” argument. That being that if someone hundreds of years ago found a watch or laptop on a beach would they have to acknowledge it was created by something, or someone greater? What if that then happened to be a flower or plant? This is a very relevant question especially now with those fearing A.I., the singularity and Moore’s law which theororizes that machines could become self aware within the next 100 years.
 
First, let me state I’m not a huge fan of the “complexity of nature” argument, at least by itself. But Catholics don’t consider God to be complex. That is not to say He is comprehensible, but He has no moving parts (no parts at all even) no composition, no functional complexity. God is something analogous to a mind, but it’s not like a human mind in that His knowledge is neither discursive or ratiocinate, nor is His knowledge a part of Him, for that would imply composition, but He is His knowledge. The “functional complexity” that we would see as requiring explanation is not part of God. If it was, we’d run into the same problem you’re highlighting. The doctrine on Divine Simplicity would apply here, and might be something to look into further.
 
Last edited:
Hi, K!

…here’s the casualty of this argument… eternity… the Designer of the Designer of the Designer of the Designer of…

Would that not be a fool’s argument?

Either everything comes from nothing or there was a Designer that caused everything to exist.

Without delving into deism. What do you think is the most rational thought that eons of happenstance and the goldilocks phenomenon brought the Universe into existence with all its complex systems, laws, and millions upon millions of elements or that there is a Designer that caused the Universe to exist?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Jamie!

…you’ve cited the strongest point: ‘chicken or egg?’

How can millions upon millions of elements simply evolve by happenstance and just so conditions?

How many eggs and other shells would have to have automatically gain self-production?

…just checked–scientist estimate that there are 8.7 million species on the planet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/species-earth-estimate-scientists); so give or take a few “eggs” or “chickens” deaf, dumb (as in stupid), and blind nature must have relied on nothing to populate this expansive and complex Universe.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
It’s an ingenious response to the argument. I don’t know of any way to rebut (nor do we have to). The standard view is that God is a necessary being, and thus COULD not be designed, but that is a dodge, not a response to the point about God needing a designer. After all, the atheist could just claim that the whole universe is a necessary being, in that case, and avoid the need to hypothesize a designer God.
Click to expand...
Except that science has proven the beginning of the universe.
 
“kjack2222 said:
Arguing for the existence of God how do you answer: the Designer needs a designer
Click to expand...
The Designer is God and the definition of God is that He needs nothing.
I’ve heard it argued that the universe can’t come from nothing - something with such functional complexity has a Designer.
Click to expand...
Correct. The universe is infinitely more complex and well organized than anything in the world. So, if we found a watch on the ground, we wouldn’t assume that it was made by random events. Therefore, the universe could not have come about by random events.
The response to this then is that the Designer also has a functional mind, one that has to be more complex than it’s creation, so then doesn’t the Designer need a designer (“if nothing comes from nothing, and God comes from nothing, then it follows that God is nothing”)? It makes this argument (complexly designed universe = Designer God) for the existence of God circular. How would you answer this?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, God is not complex. God is not made of parts. We speak of Him this way because our finite minds can’t comprehend His grandeur.
Click to expand...
 
Science does not answer that question, and I don’t know the answer.
 
kjack2222 said:
doesn’t the Designer need a designer
Click to expand...
Presumably laws of nature don’t need scientists to exist. Scientists didn’t pull them out of their butt, or invent them , they already existed. Scientists merely discovered them , like Christopher Columbus discovered a land mass that was already there.
Presumably 2+2 = 4 doesn’t need mathematicians or math teachers to exist . It stands as true without having to win a popularity contest , some number of people voting it to be , indeed , true.

I phrase things this way because typically you hear that argument ;
kjack2222 said:
doesn’t the Designer need a designer
Click to expand...
from “realists” and “rationalists” and “atheists” who want to take a swipe at religion as if it were some bizarre and unusual exception — i.e. as if the same standards they apply could not just as well be applied to them.
 
De_Maria said:
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.Jun 12, 2017

What Is the Big Bang Theory? - Space.com

https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
Click to expand...
If we take “universe” to mean “all physical events in time”, then most physicists believe that there were causes OF the singularity, which means that time existed before the Big Bang, and some thing existed before the Big Bang (call it the “material” of the Big Bang). I don’t agree with these physicists, since I think that maybe God created the Big Bang itself directly.

But my point is simply that science does not say that the Big Bang was certainly the first causal event in universe, unless we define “universe” as “everything after the Big Bang”, which is circular…
 
Last edited:
“Prodigal_Son said:
“De_Maria said:
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.Jun 12, 2017

What Is the Big Bang Theory? - Space.com

https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If we take “universe” to mean “all physical events in time”, then most physicists believe that there were causes OF the singularity,
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. Since the universe consists of space and time and the universe was created by the Big Bang, then space and time were created by the Big Bang, by definition. There is no universe without space and time.
The main theory which describes Space-Time and from which the prediction of the Big Bang comes is called General Relativity, from Einstein. … So it is called the Big Bang. The Singularity means that some terms become infinite and others unhelpfully become zero.Feb 14, 2011
cosmology - Did spacetime start with the Big bang? - Physics Stack …
cosmology - Did spacetime start with the Big bang? - Physics Stack Exchange
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Please search for “before the Big Bang” and see the thousands of links from scientists who speculate about the TIME before the Big Bang. To say that OUR space and time was created at the Big Bang does not imply that there was no space and time before the Big Bang.
 
“Most scientists believe” is not the same as “science has proven”, which you started by saying. But I don’t see reason to believe that most scientists believe that time began at the Big Bang, either. Any scientist who believes there were CAUSES of the Big Bang is logically committed to the view that something existed before (or at least apart from) the Big Bang.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
…Any scientist who believes there were CAUSES of the Big Bang is logically committed to the view that something existed before (or at least apart from) the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Any scientist who is committed to the view that something existed before the Big Bang is contradicting himself if he denies the existence of God on the condition that science has produced no evidence for God’s existence. Since science has produced no evidence that anything existed before the Big Bang.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Any scientist who believes there were CAUSES of the Big Bang is logically committed to the view that something existed before (or at least apart from) the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is the case. If space-time as a continuum came into existence with the Big Bang, there is no logical commitment to anything with regard to “before.” The notion of “outside” of time (eternity or without time or unconstrained by time) is logically tenable. There wouldn’t be any such logical commitment to the Big Bang having occurred, say, in a “bigger” space outside of our space, either. Why would we need to make such a logical commitment if it is only location in space within our universe that requires the existence of spatial dimension? That does not imply spatial dimensions are necessary aspects of a reality outside our universe unless you are arguing that space and time are necessary aspects of every reality. Space and time may operate as constraining features of our physical reality, but that does not imply they are necessary features of any or all reality. Go ahead and propose an argument if you wish, though.

If God is eternal then clearly he need not be constrained by space or time nor that these are necessary constraints on him, I.e., they aren’t necessary, but contingent as organizing principles of a changing reality as exemplified by our space-time universe.

The universe, as an entirety, including all space-time, might itself exist eternally, however.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top