If there is one, what created the designer, i.e. God?

Question

In the "Darwin vs. Design" debate, I am often confronted by the claim that science cannot explain biogenesis, or the creation of the universe for that matter. But doesn't the design hypothesis face the exact same problem? What created the designer? Plausible answers seem to fall into circularity or an ad infinitum. Some posit that a designer is eternal, but with no evidence for such, the same concession must be afforded to a materialistic account as well: note that I am referring to intelligent design (ID) which claims to be scientific, so any burden of proof or lack thereof should be shared equally between a materialistic and ID account. I think both lines run into the same problem, that of initial creation, but I would like to hear possible answers. Please do not give "deep" answers, but rather clear ones which I can understand. Thanks!

@ checkhead:
hmm, seems that the immaterial unmoved mover is problematic:
1) we have to establish how the immaterial can interact with the material
2) we still have to establish an initial movement, in either case

Answer 1

The answer to the question lies in a proper understanding of causality, motion, and the principle "ex nihilo, nihil fit" (from nothing, nothing is made).

It is per se impossible for something to come from nothing. In addition, nothing can be the cause of its own existence. Therefore since the material universe exists, we have two basic options:

1) The universe as we know it has always existed.
2) The universe as we know it has not always existed.

Now, in the case of the "Darwin vs. Design" debate, neither party holds option one, so we will not consider it in this discussion.

Thus both parties hold option two, that the universe as we know it has not always existed. Now, the basic accounts are that either the universe was caused by an uncaused, unmoved mover or there was no uncaused, unmoved mover. The former view is the creationist view. The latter would corrospond to the Darwinian/Big Bang theory.

The issue is therefore how the universe came to be. The materialists must hold that something existed before the universe came to be in the Big Bang, or whatever happened. They must maintain the eternity of matter--or of something-- which existed before the big bang and from which the universe was constituted. The materialists must also posit some cause for the bang, which in turn requires some sort of motion, otherwise the matter/energy/whatever that existed before the big bang would never have gone bang and become the universe.

Thus the materialists must maintain the eternity of motion, be it a single motion or a chain of caused motions, otherwise there would be nothing to make the bang. Now all motions which are caused are contingent upon the one moving them. However, if being in motion requires some mover, then this infinite chain of causes must always exist. But it is impossible to have an actual infinity of movers existing all at once, thus the materialists would have to maintain some unmoved mover. But they don't admit this.

To address the creationist side, if the universe has not always existed as it is now, then there must have been a time at which it did not exist as it does. Just as was seen in the unfolding of the materialistic view, there must have been something from which the current universe came. Now, this must either have been created or it must have always existed. Thus they would have to hold to the eternity of matter. Similarly they would have to hold to the eternity of motion. They would also have to hold the existence of some immaterial unmoved mover. Now (skipping ahead a little) this unmoved mover is outside of time and space. Thus, since we have established the necessary existence of an unmoved mover who is outside time and space, there is nothing inconsistent with the nature of time for there to be a beginning of time, just as there is nothing inconsistent with there being a starting point from which a motion begins. The unmoved mover, being unmoved in anyway would be the source of all motion and therefore most perfectly in act, and thus omnipotent. From this omnipotence we would have the creation of material existence.

Hope this helps and please forgive any faulty steps.

Hope you find a good answer.

Answer 2

The argument you posed for the design side is a fallacy called an argument from ignorance. We can't explain it, therefore God did it. In less civilized times, people needed religion to explain everything including physics, biology, weather, natural disasters, etc. The tangled mess has created a confusion which was best untangled by Galileo when he said "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven and not how the heavens work."

Science is the humble and hardworking soldier of truth. When it cannot explain something, it says so. If a scientific man had been asked "how did life come to be", he is not satisfied by "God made it so." He is not afraid to say "I don't know" And he is not afraid to say "I will try to find out."

For Catholics, there is no Darwin vs. Design debate. The Catholic church has already stated that there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and Catholic doctrine. It does not shake a Catholic's faith because he knows precisely what is the realm of science and what is the realm of faith. Even if there had never been an Adam and Eve, it is the lessons from the story that is important and not that the world was created in that way. So one should take care not to be distracted by the completely irrelevant.

Edit: Regarding the prime mover, and all the other St. Thomas proofs, why does it posit that it is impossible for something to move on its own, and then from that premise moves to the completely contradictory conclusion that there must have been something that moved on its own? Never mind that the proofs had no way of establishing that the prime-mover is the same as the Judeo-Chrisitian god! Why could it not have been Zeus?

Answer 3

Curiosity propels us to find out where the truth lies when searching for an answer that no one knows... Darwin didn't know anymore than we know now, and never will know! There are evidences that constant creation and destruction are not man made. No one can explain, nor prove the initial creation. There's all sorts of stipulations made by scientists... The cosmos is always in movement; it's evidence enough to see the solar system we live in, and to be reliable. Evidences that there's a Supreme Intelligence maneuvering above the entire cosmos. You're going to a dead end and waisting your energy on this. You're a good thinker, though, change your topic, this one is a lost cause, so many tried and never end up with something but resignation. Take care!

Answer 4

It is not necessary that everything be created. The reason
for this is that "to be" and "to be created" are formally
different. Another point is that creation ex nihilo is totally
an article of faith and not a conclusion of reason from first principles. That is because reasoning abstracts
from the here and now. In a nutshell:

1) Something is created implies something exists

provable and obvious.

2) Something exists implies something is created

not provable but if true not neccessarily true for all
existing things

3) A rule of thumb: If you can't prove it then,

a) It could be false

b) It could be an "article of faith"

c) It's beyond human capacity

Answer 5

All evidence points to the universal principle that nothing comes of nothing.

Hence, we are unable to falsify this premise: Some thing always was, and of it the universe or universes have come.

Simply, this Something may be Mind, or it may be Matter which includes a "big bang" even as oscillating system.

We have excellent evidence that Something is beyond laws of physics. E.g., the Host of Light at Garabandal, Spain in the early 1960s was preannounced, manifested as a perfectly formed disk of Light in thin air, and was copiously filmed by sceptics and others.

You might find worthwhile perspectives and propositions put forth in "Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet.

Whether Mind or Matter, Something always was.

cordially,

j.

Answer 6

Despite possibly many replies to the contrary on "both sides of the fence" I feel this is a question with no answer;as you seem to be working out for yourself.
When there is a lack of actual evidence then you start getting into a debate between where human logic takes you and what belief systems state.
There are as many equally valid answers as there are people who consider the question.
The difficulty one reaches whan you have decided as to who or what created the universe is the more interesting and equally difficult question to answer.WHY ?.
If you can figure out something you are comfortable with,then stick to that you could spend years looking for answers that aren't there

Answer 7

the element is, that God has constantly been right here. he's the writer of each thing. the reason you think of God desires a writer is considering the fact which you have been created. there's no way which you would be able to think of you have been around continuously. This makes you think of that God develop into created someway, yet he wasnt.

Answer 8

(If there is one..) The answer is ITS COMPOSING MATERIALS. In the absence of its components (ie, atoms), there could never be a god/God. My supposition is based on the principle that "only nothing is composed of nothing". Hence, if the designer is not composed of anything or material component, then that designer is a specie of nothing.

Answer 9

If God was created,then who created the creator of God.?Then who created the creator of the creator of God ?.Then who created the creator of the creator of the creator of God ?

How far back would you like to go ?

Answer 10

YOU

are simply questioning simply in a philosophical manner...

to get closer to this answer means

seeking information on historical philosophical figures.

Aristotle maybe?

plato?

john locke?