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

[Prodigal_Son]

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 unconstrained by time is logically tenable. There wouldn’t be a logical commitment to the Big Bang having occurred in a “bigger” space outside of our space, either. Why would that be if location in space within our universe requires spatial dimension, but that does not imply spatial dimensions are necessary aspects of reality. They may operate as constraining features of our physical reality, but not necessary features of all reality.

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.

The universe, as an entirety, including all space-time, might exist eternally.

To say that there is a divine cause of the Big Bang is to “leave the system”. Since we are talking about the only possible timeless cause (the Necessary Being, not subject to contingencies like time), I agree with you in that particular case.

But scientists usually talk about physical causes of the Big Bang. These would have to exist in time. Indeed, the very notion of time is the notion of events happening consecutively. If we want to talk about simultaneous causation of the Big Bang, I’m up for that. But that isn’t what I think these scientists believe.

 

[ynotzap]

If the Designer needed a Designer, then the Designer of the Designer would also need a Designer ad infinitum. Infinity has no begining and no end so there would be no beginning for the first Designer Logically the first Designer to be the first Designer, had to be the Undesigned Designer, or First Uncaused Cause who is God

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If the Designer needed a Designer, then the Designer of the Designer would also need a Designer ad infinitum. Infinity has no begining and no end so there would be no beginning for the first Designer Logically the first Designer to be the first Designer, had to be the Undesigned Designer, or First Uncaused Cause who is God

This does not answer the question. If a hypothesis leads to an infinite regress, that is a problem with the hypothesis. The OP suggested that the hypothesis “There must be a designer to explain anything complex” (or something to that effect) led to an infinite regress.

 

[De_Maria]

To say that there is a divine cause of the Big Bang is to “leave the system”. …

To say that time and space existed before the Big Bang is also to leave the system. Science can go up to the Big Bang but can not go beyond it. Why? Because, by definition, the laws that govern the universe and which science relies upon to gather information about the universe, do not exist where the universe did not exist.

 

[HarryStotle]

Took the words right out of my mouth…

… well, okay, off the keys of my keyboard.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To say that time and space existed before the Big Bang is also to leave the system. Science can go up to the Big Bang but can not go beyond it. Why? Because, by definition, the laws that govern the universe and which science relies upon to gather information about the universe, do not exist where the universe did not exist.

I think that’s right, and it means that all such speculations are highly … speculative. We cannot know the tendencies of things which have different conditions of observation than the things we experience. But this does not touch on my point about time. If there were events that caused the Big Bang, then we can speak about them “being in time” or we can speak about them “being in ANOTHER time”, but we cannot talk about them being timeless. There is no such thing as a timeless event.

 

[Wesrock]

I addressed this.

 

[rossum]

Not true. Science has not, and cannot, prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

Most cosmologists assume that there was something before the Big Bang, though they do not (yet) agree on what it was: colliding branes, an 11-dimensional multiverse and other ideas. Cosmology can get very strange at that level.

Obviously science has no basic problem with a cause “before” (for some meaning of “before”) the Big Bang. The problem is all the other attributes assigned to that cause. The multiverse is not intelligent, moral or particularly interested in what happens to one particular species on the surface of one planet among many.

As to the problem in the OP. If you insist that intelligence requires an intelligent cause, then you do get an infinite regress. If you admit the existence of an uncaused intelligence, then you cannot assume that other intelligences are always caused. Where one uncaused intelligence exists, so may others. Alternatively, intelligence can have a non-intelligent cause. That is the current position of science; the multiverse (or equivalent) is not intelligent, but it is a base cause of intelligence.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

The classical arguments aren’t to merely an uncaused intelligence. It’s not being an intelligence per se that makes it arguably uncaused, so arguing that it risks making other intelligences uncaused, too, is a non sequitur.

 

[De_Maria]

I think that’s right, and it means that all such speculations are highly … speculative. We cannot know the tendencies of things which have different conditions of observation than the things we experience. But this does not touch on my point about time. If there were events that caused the Big Bang, then we can speak about them “being in time” or we can speak about them “being in ANOTHER time”, but we cannot talk about them being timeless. There is no such thing as a timeless event.

Only for those that ignore another source of knowledge. Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation explains that God created the universe, out of nothing.

 

[HarryStotle]

Except that a multiverse or any other “event” which caused the universe does not explain itself (or themselves.) Events such as these don’t satisfy the principle of sufficient reason. The Big Bang is a perfect “place” (non-spatial, of course) to “locate” (again, non-spatially) the Uncaused Cause. Otherwise, invoking some other event simply kicks that can further down the street. Why be unparsimonious unnecessarily?

 

[Wesrock]

Either way, we need not stake a claim on the Big Bang being the first moment of God’s creation. We should be cautious scientifically about unnessary and unparsimonious explanations, but as you say, even if there was some non-divine cause before the BB, we’re no worse for wear.

 

[De_Maria]

A multiverse assumes multiple universes, again, without any evidence. You have again, left the system.

Unless you are making reference to the Divine System, which is revealed in God’s Word by Sacred Tradition. In which there is the Spiritual plane or reality. And the physical plane or reality. Existing side by side. This is the only “multiverse” for which any evidence exists.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Only for those that ignore another source of knowledge. Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation explains that God created the universe, out of nothing.

No argument here!

 

[rossum]

Except that a multiverse or any other “event” which caused the universe does not explain itself (or themselves.)

A multiverse assumes multiple universes, again, without any evidence. You have again, left the system.

Theists start with God and avoid questions about how God came to be there. Cosmologists start with the multiverse and avoid questions about how the multiverse came to be there.

Notice the similarity?

For completeness, Buddhists say the question is not particularly important and wastes time that can be better spent. See the Parable of the Arrow.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Only for those that ignore another source of knowledge. Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation explains that God created the universe, out of nothing.

Which verse of the Bhagavad Gita were you referring to?

There are a lot of different books that are claimed as “Divine Revelation” and they do not all agree. You need to have a meta-Divine Revelation to allow you to pick the correct Divine Revelation.

“This book is not to be doubted.” – Qur’an, sura 2

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

Theists start with God and avoid questions about how God came to be there. Cosmologists start with the multiverse and avoid questions about how the multiverse came to be there.

The similarity you’re drawing and the lack of distinction you make between the two scenarios just shows a lack of understanding about the cosmological arguments. The theist arguments already respond to such objections; they don’t avoid them.

 

[ynotzap]

If the Designer needed a Designer means the first designer is the cause and the second designer is the effect. The first designer also needs a designer because it too is the effect of another designer, you have a series of causes and effects. If you go from effect to cause in the series without a cause outside of the series, this would constitute an infinite series, there would be no beginning cause. or designer and therefore no series, so an undesigned designer has to be the starting cause
The fact that the first designer needs a designer means that it is finite limited and dependent on another and did not design itself, it had a beginning necessarily, the product of an Uncaused Cause

 

[De_Maria]

I love to compare religions. What you will find when you compare any religion to the Catholic Church, is that no other religion is as systematic and organized as the Catholic Church.

Theists start with God and avoid questions about how God came to be there. Cosmologists start with the multiverse and avoid questions about how the multiverse came to be there.

Notice the similarity?

I notice the similarities in your constructs. But you have excluded Catholicism from that equation.

The Catholic Church begins with God and does not avoid answering any questions about God. The problem is that non-Catholics do not always like the Catholic answer. For example, the Catholic answer to our construct is that God has always been there. God has no beginning and no end. You may not like the answer, but that is the answer none the less.

For completeness, Buddhists say the question is not particularly important

Does that make them right?

and wastes time that can be better spent. See the Parable of the Arrow.

If it wastes time to seek out that which the most powerful and intelligent Being in the universe has revealed in His eternal wisdom, why isn’t it a waste of time to seek out the answers of a limited intelligence such as that which the Buddha, a mere man, produces?

 

[De_Maria]

Which verse of the Bhagavad Gita were you referring to?

I see your error and raise you with the truth. I was not referring to the Bhagavad Gita because I don’t consider that text to be divinely revealed. Nor can anyone produce evidence that it is so.

Whereas, the Traditions of the Catholic Church were documented in the Scriptures by contemporary eyewitnesses. This is a form of evidence that is acceptable in any court of law in the world.

There are a lot of different books that are claimed as “Divine Revelation” and they do not all agree. You need to have a meta-Divine Revelation to allow you to pick the correct Divine Revelation.

On the contrary, all you need is the time to examine their claims and you will find that the Catholic Church backs up all hers with objective, verifiable, evidence.

“This book is not to be doubted.” – Qur’an, sura 2

Off the top of my head, I’ll give you a couple of reasons to doubt the Quran.

First.

1. Mohammed claimed that he got the information for the Quran from an angel.
2. But no one saw the angel except Mohammed.
3. So, that’s an unverified claim.

Second.

1. Mohammed claimed he was instructed to write a book.
2. But he never wrote anything.
3. The so-called witnesses of Mohammed, were merely secretaries.
4. There were approximately 40 of them and they were not given the suras in a systematic way.
5. Those who were given the same suras, could not make them match. In other words, for example, sura #1 for one secretary, did not match sura #1 for another.
6. When Mohammed died, the Quran was in shambles. The 40 secretaries each claimed to have the authentic Quran.
7. A fellow named Uthman, one of the secretaries, forcibly collected the other 39 versions of the Quran and BURNED THEM.
8. He then presented his version as the true Quran.
9. But no one can verify whether anything in that Quran is from Mohammed’s mouth, because there is no other version to which it can be compared.

So, I’ll stick to Catholicism. Our Theology is verified by the miracles and signs that Jesus performed and the evidence is testified in Scriptures which were written by contemporaries who were members of a vibrant community which did not contradict that which was Taught.

But, you might complain, the Muslims didn’t complain either. And I respond, “Yes, they did.” Read their history. Uthman took the other Qurans by force and imposed his Quran by force. The rest of the Muslim community would not have accepted his Quran, otherwise.