Thursday, August 04, 2005

Who designed the designer?

The argument goes...
If life did not "just happen" but requires an explanation which chance events cannot provide....
and if that explanation is God..... then what is the next step in our explanation.

If God is alive and requires an explanation which chance events cannot provide.... who designed God?

In other words (they say) "Saying God designed life is an explanation which is empty of real meaning."

This is rubbish.

If I declare that "William G Naeus designed the Delux Whirling Recdictajergle..."(if you haven't got one then you haven't lived) ....you do not raise your eyebrows at me and say "You silly nit wit... you have to tell me who designed William G Naeus before you can talk about what he designed"

William G. Naeus is an intelligent agent who designs brilliant new, useful gadgets. He is a satisfactory explanation of the existence of the Delux Whirling Rectictajergle. Indeed if you have ever used a Delux Whirling Recdictajergle then you will probably agree that William G. Naeus did a rather good job and deserves considerable praise for his work.


When Darwinists find so called evidence of imperfect design and boast that if there is an intelligent designer then he didn't do a very good job did he.... ha ha any old grandma could have done better than that with a ball of wool and two knitting needles! Then I say... look at the best robot bird that the entire ability of the human race has managed to make so far.... where is our best attempt at a living organism.... even when we have living organisms sitting in front of us to copy let alone starting from scratch!

We all have to follow the chain of causes back to our own chosen final cause.
Darwinists want to exclude intelligent causes from rational explanation of events.
They want to believe that matter contains within itself the full explanation of its own being and structure. This ends up in believing in eternal and self sufficient and self ordering matter.

What the result is however of de-personalising the origin is that it depersonalises ourselves... it makes us infinitely less than we know ourselves to be and ends up making us fools because we no longer know what we know.

As Darwin pointed out.... "Who would trust the brain of a well developed monkey?"

An eternal, personal God is a more satisfying explanation of our universe than eternal matter. Even the properties of matter that we can detect tell us that it becomes more disordered over time.

As Augustine discovered "We were made for Thee... and our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Thee."

If you banish God from your heart ....you will just have a God sized whole left behind.

8 Comments:

Blogger Mats said...

Very well said. I once heard a testemony from an ex-drug addict, who said pretty much the same things you said. We were made for a reason, and until we find that Reason (Jesus) we are empty and void.

12:40 pm  
Anonymous Tim said...

Sorry, but this argument does not hold to logic as it fails to appreciate a basic premise.

If we want an explanation of what created the Deluxe Whirligig Recdictajergle, then to give the name William G Naeus is to most standards acceptable.

God, however, is an attempt to explain what created everything- as in every thing.

Is God a thing? I think you would only sound foolish were you not to say yes. God can't be an intelligent BEING and yet not BE.

So God is, in fact, not useful in trying to explain everything. God is a thing, incidentally he is also undeniably the most complex conceptual entity ever conceived of. If we are trying to explain the origin of every thing, God requires an explanation - a lot of it in fact.

No such explanations have ever gained any notable attention. I have been interested in the subject for years and have not yet heard even one.

Science may not have a perfect answer but science will continue to work towards it. It has a lot of very beautiful explanations at present which hold against all manner of testing and reasoning.

4:24 pm  
Blogger psiloiordinary said...

You said;

"When Darwinists find so called evidence of imperfect design and boast that if there is an intelligent designer then he didn't do a very good job did he.... ha ha any old grandma could have done better than that with a ball of wool and two knitting needles! Then I say... look at the best robot bird that the entire ability of the human race has managed to make so far.... where is our best attempt at a living organism.... even when we have living organisms sitting in front of us to copy let alone starting from scratch!"

What does "So-called" mean in this context? Are you saying it is actually good design or that the scientists are making it up.

Do you wear glasses?

Had your appendix out?

We breathe through the same hole we eat and drink through - doh!

You then start to compare mans designs with nature. Hang on isn't it gods design you are arguing for.

Nobody said evolution with its unintelligent design process can't do better than people!

You have confused two issues here. 1 - How clever would god be at design. 2 - How clever are we at deisgn.

You don't even consider how clever evolution would be at design.

You are quoting a response to a different issue to that which you yourself have raised.

You are claiming a supernatural designer created natural organisms so why don't you compare natures designs to the standard that a supernatural designer would achieve?

Oh, is it because it disproves your point of view?

1:19 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

Just out of interest are you and Tim in contact with each other?

3:02 pm  
Blogger psiloiordinary said...

Hi Andrew,

Not to my knowledge.

I haven't discussed your blog with anyone.

I don't know if Tim frequents any other web places I do.

Why do you ask?

10:35 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

I was just mildly interested in why this post suddenly sprang back to life with comments from both of you. Just one of those strange things that happen I suppose...

10:50 pm  
Blogger psiloiordinary said...

Well I can't explain it step by step - must be god!

Sorry - couldn't resist ;-D

7:27 am  
Anonymous Tim said...

Hey Andy - just to clarify, no I don't know any of the other commenters here. Do you take part in any other forums? I generally seek less-populated ones in favour of more respectful and structured debate, in fact i only found your posts while writing a uni essay comparing the dawkins/coyne argument to this one http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1985698,00.html by richard buggs that you might care to look at. Cheers mate - tim

4:38 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home