Objection to the "Who Designed the Designer?" Question
I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer?" question. The question of "Who Designed the Designer?" is often asked as a challenge to the concept of intelligent design or the existence of a creator. It assumes that if everything in the universe requires a cause or a designer, then the designer itself must also have a cause or a designer. However, I believe that this question is invalid, and that the concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point. Furthermore, my argument also states that if the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress. This further supports my claim that the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.
Here is my argument:
Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.
My argument challenges the assumption behind the "Who Designed the Designer?" question by emphasizing the necessary starting point that the concept of a designer implies. The designer must have been the starting point, the origin of all things, and not designed by another entity. Also, the question "Who designed the designer?" is invalid because it's like asking "Who taught Helio Gracie jiu-jitsu?" - the answer would be no one, as Helio Gracie was the start and inventor of BJJ. Similarly, the designer must have been the starting point, not designed by another entity.
Here is my argument:
Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.
My argument challenges the assumption behind the "Who Designed the Designer?" question by emphasizing the necessary starting point that the concept of a designer implies. The designer must have been the starting point, the origin of all things, and not designed by another entity. Also, the question "Who designed the designer?" is invalid because it's like asking "Who taught Helio Gracie jiu-jitsu?" - the answer would be no one, as Helio Gracie was the start and inventor of BJJ. Similarly, the designer must have been the starting point, not designed by another entity.
Comments (76)
I think your argument is a strong statement of Premise 1 which is attempting to refute a counter objection, but in argument form. It looks more like a dialectic.
In response to the conclusion, I'd say it's plausible that another starting point could account for the designer other than the designer. For instance, the guy who designed airplanes is accounted for by being human and where all that came from. So why is it that the designer must be the starting point? Some designers are not starting points after all.
Not a great analogy given that prior or jiu-jitsu there were other marital arts that Helio knew of and unarmed combat had had a long, long tradition which had evolved over time. It's not like Helio created something from nothing, the way gods are supposed to. If there were no physical combat or fighting ever in the history of human beings then maybe this would be a better analogy.
Taking your analogy then we might say that the god or gods who made this world might have been influence by gods which made other worlds they had encountered. Just as Helio was influenced by other fighting techniques.
Maybe you believe that there are many gods who specialize in designing different parts of 'creation'? Some gods excel at skys perhaps? Some are brilliant at apes and other gods are good at landscape?
Well, in any case, if a designer doesn't need a cause, then we have established that some things do not require a cause. These things are often called brute facts. Could it be a paucity of human imagination to suggest that what we call the universe must have a cause? It might just be a brute fact.
How could we possibly know that everything must have a cause, based on the small amount humans know of the entire universe? From a philosophical position, we are not sure what causation even is. Personally I don't think we can build a robust view of the supposed 'ultimate nature of reality' based on how human perceptions and value judgements work.
Welcome to the forum.
When you say "the designer" I assume you mean the one who planned our reality, the world we see around us. I don't see any evidence that reality was planned by anyone. It looks like it just sort of happened.
I guess we should just step back one step - who created reality? Does that make a difference? Without any specific justification, I've always assumed the universe has just always been here. No beginning and no end. I admit I don't have any evidence for that position, but I don't have any evidence against it either. Let's apply Occam's razor. As you know, that's the principle that, when looking at different but equally effective explanations for the same phenomena, we should accept the one that allows us to forget about the whole thing.
That's my solution. No designer, no creator. It just is the way it is.
If we're asking if there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe, as far as I can tell the question of who designed the designer is not the point. The only question for me is, is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe? The mistake for many who make this argument is that they're usually trying to prove or give strong evidence for their particular religious God. Whether there is evidence of intelligent design may have nothing to do with whether any religious belief is true or false. In other words, one could ask this question without invoking some God or gods. It's quite possible that there might have evolved some sort of super beings in some other universe that have the power to create things we can't even imagine. In fact, this may be quite likely the case given the ions of time that have passed. We couldn't even imagine how advanced beings could get in billions and billions of years. The point I'm making is that the intelligent design argument is not necessarily a religious argument as so many assume. This brings us back to, "Is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe?"
There isn't a shred of evidence, and ID makes no unique, testable predictions either.
I suppose you could argue that the existence of order, itself, is not something that can be explained, because any explanation you might wish to offer itself depends on there being an order.
The 'appearance of there being a design' is an argument that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett make - that living things appear to be designed, but that each of the components of the overall organism arises without a designer, purely as a result of chance and necessity - that some things just happen on the molecular level that then give rise to necessary outcomes due to physical laws.
I think the problem with that argument is that it envisages 'the designer' as a kind of engineer or literal architect tinkering with matter in such a way as to generate living beings - a kind of super-engineer. Again the problem with that argument is that it's a rather anthropomorphic depiction of what this supposed 'higher intelligence' must be. Again the response might be that the existence of order is something that science itself presumes, but that science doesn't explain, nor need to explain, as it's by definition a metaphysical question.
Nicely summarized. I'd probably remove the 'just' from before 'happen.' An issue for me is it is humans deciding upon what is order and what is chaos. How do we know? It's not like we are not coming to this judgment from some Archimedean point.
It looks to me as if the universe is more about chaos and entropy than order - black holes being so bountiful and an entire creation on earth predicated on needless suffering in the wilderness, not to mention the cruelties of almost universal predation and the bountiful range of poorly designed features of what we know as corporeal life - innumerable diseases, cancer, MS, Parkinson's, leprosy, etc...
Is this supposed to be reasons why intelligent design doesn't make sense? Doesn't it depend on the goals of the designer? The goals of a designer may not have anything to with creating something that fits your conception of intelligent design. Maybe the designer/s wanted these things as part of the design, i.e., to create a challenging place to experience.
If you are desperate to make intelligent design fit, then sure - chaos and misery might be part of the plan. But in debates with intelligent design proponents it is generally order and beauty they elevate, not the predation and disease component, which are usually glossed over. But the argument that if there is a god he is a cunt is workable, based on how the world seems.
I think that should be Yahweh, the Hotel Manager theodicy.
There's of course nothing amiss with an infinite regress.
Hence there is no need to accept the conclusion.
I'll ask you the same question I asked , what would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe? What things are lacking?
In short I would require that the following points made in the following article be refuted. They haven't been and stand as defeaters of the so-called "argument".
https://phys.org/news/2007-02-wrong-intelligent.html
Also, quite famously, it was determined in a US court of law that "ID" is not in any peer-reviewed sense a scientific theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Since when do I need some court to tell me what follows logically. I really don't care what a particular court says. The argument should logically stand on its own. Why is it that you don't make your own arguments, you seem to always point people to this or that link. Make your argument.
Every argument against intelligent design commits the fallacy of the self-sealing argument. Why? Because they are unable to say what would count as evidence of intelligent design. If you can't do this then your argument is sealed off from counter-evidence, which is exactly what many religious people do.
Humans are proof that intelligent design is a possibility and it is weird that at this time in history of the greatest human ingenuity we are denying design.
The reason we can imagine intelligent, rational etc designers is because it is an ability we exhibit. And yes when we ask who invented the car we don't go on to ask who invented the person that invented the car.
So it is not just a causal question of what caused the thing that caused the thing it involves intelligence and volition and consciousness etc.
So I don't think looking for design and creation in reality is a stupid or defunct question.
There is also the question of why reality should be subject to human reason and why we should have the capacity to understand it.
Quoting 180 Proof
and yet you asked anyway and I replied with two links to articles which corroborated my initial comment. Clearly, you've either not read what I've proffered or do not understand what you read or you're disingenously denying the facts stated therein. In any case, I'm not going waste any more time discussing "ID" unless, of course, you can demonstrate that "ID" is an explanatory model and thereby derive testable predictions from it (which none of it's proponents have done to date).
You had me up to this point. I don't understand. You seem to use reason, then you seem to want to dismiss it. Of course reason (logic) isn't the only way to justify a belief, there are other ways, but reason is probably one of the best ways to justify a conclusion.
I'm not the one making the claim, so I can't provide an answer. Usually the reason we know something is designed in life is because we already know it is designed - it's manufactured and distributed by channels and makers we can go to and meet and we can understand (almost fully) how and why it was made.
But anything can appear to be designed if we cast a wide enough net. I think the quest to identify this is pretty fraught, if not pointless when it comes to the natural world.
I'm really only interested in Muslims and evangelical Christians who make this argument and nail it down with some specificity.
So you must believe we're alway being watched because "all around us" on sunny days we see 'faces in clouds'.
I generally agree, but there are things that we've found that defy this, and yet we know they've been intelligently designed. And we know just by looking at the thing/artifact.
He gets lots of practice ;-)
I'd be interested to here more what are a couple of examples?
I would say a beaver dam, spider web or a bird's nest are designed too. Maybe not in the same manner as a car but certainly planned and contrived for a purpose.
Well, if there's gotta be a starting point then why can't the universe be that? The argument for a designer is predicated on the need for a designer. If the designer of x doesn't require a designer, then why should x have to have one? [x = the universe]
Helio Gracie! :up:
The point is that we do have objects that don't fit your criteria, and yet we know they're intelligently designed.
I was simply responding spontaneously to your question about what is evidence of intelligent design. I think my answer is pretty sound, but I never pretended that it would determine with 100% accuracy all cases. No doubt there are elaborate things crafted from metal, stone and wood that are mysteries. Nevertheless, the fact that we can all tell they are crafted suggests design isn't entirely elusive.
What we come back to is the notion that we have yet to demonstrate that the world or universe is designed. I am not convinced by any of the arguments in support of the proposition, as I've stated earlier, just as I am unconvinced there are gods. It's a judgement I make and others will make different judgements.
Why can't an undesigned universe be the starting point?
In fact, your argument can be used to refute the argument that the universe was designed. If the complexity of the universe suggests that it was created, then the complexity of its creator suggests that it too was created. This leads to an infinite regress which is untenable. Therefore, the complexity of the universe does not suggest that it was created.
It's special pleading to argue that this infinite regress proves that the creator wasn't created but not that the universe wasn't created.
I understand, and by the way I never spelled out my argument, I'm just responding to what people generally mean by ID. I don't think the argument against ID is even rational, let alone sound. There are just too many similarities between human artifacts and artifacts of nature that point to ID, they're innumerable. The only thing that I can see that you have going for you is that most philosophers and scientists don't believe in ID, although many do. This gives the feel of being compelling, but is only a psychological point of strength (similar to peer pressure), probably based on many of the irrational arguments that come from a religious point of view. This is also what's behind many of the anti-metaphyiscal arguments, although not all.
Quoting Tom Storm
The fact that we can tell that they are the result of ID has to do with what we generally mean by ID (a linguistic point), which I talked about earlier in this thread; and the analogical similarities between human artifacts (and human artifacts that we have a difficult time explaining) and artifacts of nature. The alternative to ID is that the human body happened by chance, and this seems a bit of a stretch to say the least. The human brain is probably the most complex thing in the universe, if it's not, it's certainly among the most complex; and to think it happened by chance (which maybe logically possible, although probably not metaphysically possible) is to strain credulity.
It's interesting to me that when many scientists and philosophers who oppose ID talk about nature they give it the very thing that ID proponents say is lacking, viz., intelligence. Without intelligence nature would be completely random, not expressing a will that chooses this over that because of it's predilection to survive.
I don't think there is any way to explain, how for example, the human body happened without some intelligence behind its structure, other than to appeal to ID. Chance is certainly possible (although I wonder), but not likely. Because something is possible, this gives us no reason to believe it's true. This is one case where the general public is smarter than many of the academics.
I have no illusions that this will be convincing to many of you, but I think it's an important point to be made.
Are you denying the existence of intelligent design?
Do you believe my phone created itself from a primeval soup?
God created the universe therefore God must have a creator.
Hence.
Humans created the piano therefore humans must have a creator.
I think the architecture of ant colonies is instructive because it involves many ants doing specialized tasks. If it is intelligent design then which ant or ants is the designer?
I do not follow your logic because the first premise is false and ends with a doubtful conclusion. There is not evidence of God created the universe, therefore we cannot conclude he has a "creator"
In the other hand, sorry but I don't see the logic of creating a piano and depending on a creator
Your points are interesting to me, I think it 's certainly possible to see similarities in things if you choose too.
Quoting Sam26
I'm neither a philosopher or scientist nor know those worlds, so they don't really impact upon my views other than indirectly.
Quoting Sam26
That seems a classic fallacy from incredulity - you even used the word credulity. I don't know the universe well enough to make any totalising claims about human brains. But I do know it is us making value judgments like this and we're a bit biased. 'Complexity' is an idea defined by us and who knows what counts as complex outside of the human imagination.
Quoting Sam26
There's another fallacy from incredulity. 'I can't imagine how else it could have happened..."
Quoting Sam26
It's not convincing because we still lack a demonstration of how nature is the product of design. It still seems a wonky inference to make, but it's easy to see why people might make it.
Of course many consider the hallmark of good design to be simplicity. Something being complex is just something being complex. One would need a demonstration of how complexity would be impossible without a designer. Not just an argument from personal incredulity.
Quoting Fooloso4
There must be a university educated chief engineer ant who directs it all. It's impossible to imagine how else they could do it. Of course we know the answer here - god directs it all - the ants are entirely incidental...
That explains the tiny diplomas on the wall.
I don't deny "ID" any more than I deny "magic". :roll:
I know the primeval soup is not an artifact like your phone or house or the city. Compositional fallacy, Andrew: just because there are designed artifacts in the universe or that physical regularities appear "designed" to us in no way entails they are "designed" or the universe it is "designed". Same applies to "cause" causes in the universe do not entail that the universe is the effect of a cause In both cases, the evidence against cosmic "creation / design" is e.g. (1) quantum uncertainty > (2) planck-radius universe > (3) low entropy past > (4) deep time > (5) deep space ... (6) autopoeisis > (7) evolution. :fire:
The believer in a creator does not need to say where the creator came from.
If you believe humans can create things but are uncreated then the same can apply for a hypothetical creator deity.
The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist.
It's not a matter of just choosing to see similarities, as though there aren't objective things that make them similar. It's that there are objective similarities.
Quoting Tom Storm
My argument is not simply based on, "Well, it's just common sense, or it must be true because it's easy to understand," so there's no fallacy here except what you want to see. It's an analogical argument between human artifacts and artifacts of nature. Sure, it's easy to understand, and it sure does involve common sense, but that's not the basis of the argument.
This is what the argument would look like with premises and a conclusion, it's an inductive argument.
[b](1) Human artifacts that have a structure such that the parts fit together to accomplish a purpose which is higher than any part alone, such as a watch, car, or computer, are the result of intelligent design.
(2) Artifacts of nature have a structure where the parts fit together to accomplish a purpose which is higher than any part alone, such as the human body.
(3) Therefore, since the objects of nature exhibit the same kind of structure, they are the result of intelligent design.[/b]
There is no fallacy here. If you think so, then you don't understand the argument. There's much more to the argument, but I'm going to leave it here.
Thanks for the response though.
I never said it was. I said you were making a fallacy from incredulity. Might I say, a textbook example.
Quoting Sam26
That's an example of a false equivalence fallacy - based on some resemblance. I think you need stronger premises.
Quoting Sam26
Perhaps better we leave this discussion to people with actual philosophy and science expertise.
Quoting Sam26
You're welcome. I enjoyed the discussion.
There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word 'purpose' between #1 and #2. In #1 something is designed for a purpose - the watch is designed to mark time. What is the purpose of the human body in #2 [added: for which it was designed]?
The fallacy of incredulity includes what I said, but it also includes other things. Sometimes it takes the form that you can't imagine how a proposition could be false or true, therefore it must be true or false. Again, I know the logic , so don't insert this fallacy, it's not there.
instead of purpose one could insert "to accomplish activities of a higher order," that would be more precise. So, in the case of a watch, we observe the parts working together to achieve a higher order, and the same in the case of the human body. The watch's higher order is to achieve the time, the body doesn't have one particular higher order but many, such as reproduction, digestion, immune response, etc.
And includes what I said. :wink:
Quoting Fooloso4
Indeed.
It is not really a fundamental difference. What we do know is that intelligent design exists and that is all that matters to allow intelligent design. Now you seem to be saying something doesn't exist if humans can't perceive it.
Well, take the example of Black swans. Black swans were viewed by Europeans as the the paradigm of implausibility because every swan they found was white.
But really the existence of swans makes it possible swans of any colour could exist.
The lack of evidence of black swans appeared to make them implausible but it was a limitation in European humans current perceptual scope.
So because we know intelligent designers exist that itself cannot be ruled out and the issue then becomes one of faith.
Is there intelligent design elsewhere?
People who are adamant there isn't God believe there must be life on other planets and use the existence of life here to take that stance and are quite adamant. But apparently we can't stretch human capacities like intelligence and consciousness in the same way but must reduce everything else to brute insensate mechanism.
PS do you only make short posts? If so why?
This statement is not true unless, of course, you / someone can cite conclusive scientific evidence in favor of "ID". As I've pointed out already, unique and testable predictions cannot be derived from it, and so, like other creationist myths, "ID" doesn't explain anything about the natural world.
No. However, I always avoid posting excessive word salads and tendentious run-on non sequiturs. Search my post history.
I am referring to intelligent design by humans which is intelligent design.
Whether the whole or reality is intelligent designed is another issue. But there is evidence of intelligent design. Which increases the likelihood of intelligent design elsewhere.
Humans have got to the stage where we are genetically modifying species, cloning species and creating artificial reality. It is making a theory of intelligent design or even the brain in a vat more plausible every day,
The White swan is not evidence of the Black swan but it makes the existence of black swans unproblematic but as I say Europeans didn't see it that why.
I don't see why humans assessment of nature and physics should be the final measure of what exists.
We know human technological artifacts are designed for specific purposes; they are utilities, tools, machines. Although natural systems. including animals and plants, behave in more or less invariant ways, we cannot say they are designed for any specific purpose; they are not utilities, tools, machines.
The same goes for the Universe as a whole. If something within a system is a tool or machine, then it has a purpose for something else within the system. In the case of the Universe as a whole this is impossible, since there is nothing outside the system that it could be the tool or machine for.
While it is true that there are human capacities not shared with organisms with a lesser degree of order it does not follow that humans are designed in order to have these capacities.
There is another problem. Either your version of the design argument applies only to humans or organisms that are able
Quoting Sam26
in which case only these things are designed or it applies to all things, in which case activities of a higher order does not apply.
No it's not.
That is not true though.
A computer has numerous purposes and not one specific purpose and apparently unlimited potential. A pen can be used to sign a check, write a novel or draw a picture or to scratch an itch.
There are many multi purpose artefacts that can be used in different ways in the future.
The only point that matters to me is that humans are intelligent sentient designers so that paradigm is possible.
Biology is very teleological in its need to describe what every mechanism in an organism does and how it contributes to survival.
The no design position to me is more of an interpretation than anything falsifiable. We know the heart has a function because when it fails you get very sick or die.
Computers were designed to compute, and their development has enabled many different manifestations of that basic function, but it is still the basic function and is what computers were designed to do.
Same goes for the pen, it was designed to write; the fact that it can be used for other purposes is irrelevant.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
It does not follow from the fact of the heart having a function that it was purposely designed to have that function. As far as we know the heart and its functions evolved.
But it has a specific function and serves an essential purpose just as much as a pen does if not more so.
As I say I still think the no design position is equally as speculative as the design position and also unfalsifiable.
In relation to the thread topic and as I said earlier. if humans are intelligent designers who were not designed then the same could apply to other intelligent designers avoiding an infinite regress. The benefit of an intelligent designer is that they can explain their creation and explain functions.
For something that is not designed the human body succumbs well to a functional analysis.
I don't think the onus is on the design advocate to find a designer the onus is on someone to explain reality without reference to a designer if that's what they think is the case.
I feel like people want us to take a certain attitude to reality when it is an open question.
Also the recent explosion of human technology in a short period shows that what is said to take millions of years to evolve can be created in a few years with intelligence.
The "no-design" position is the natural selection position, and sure it is speculative. Is it falsifiable? Popper didn't think so, and then he did, if I recall correctly. I can't recall the details of his change of mind, but you can look it up if you're interested.
The problem I have with the "designer" idea is that it is definitely unfalsifiable, and it involves an entity, which is not observable, and processes of which we can have no idea, so it would appear to be of little or no use to the speculative understanding.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
The recent explosion of human technology is arguably mostly down to the fortuitous (or not) discovery of fossil fuels in my view.
Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place. :roll:
Quoting Janus
:up:
Yes, and it involves an entity for which we have no actual evidence in the first place - or a series of entities, or an advance alien species. Even if one accepts a designer it is impossible to say what or who that might be.
The design argument resembles the 'something from nothing' argument or pre-suppositionalist justifications for reason - it's an attempt to prove a god figure without actual evidence of that god. This is done by avoiding the pesky question of evidence for a deity and pointing instead to debatable interpretations of phenomena as evidence of their works. 'You see, there is a god, I can't imagine how else we could explain the origin of life/design/reason, etc.' A fallacy from incredulity.
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
You started this discussion but haven't participated after the first post. That's considered impolite.
I've seen this happen before, but later discovered the OP had been banished. The member in question was probably a real philosopher, but ill-mannered and hence his TPF career ended before it even started.
It is not clear what conclusions you could draw from humans just by analysing the mechanisms of their artefacts.
To me it is a choice to try and explain everything without a creator and that would be wrong in analysing human artefacts.
I don't see why we have to try and explain reality as if it only consisted of insentient atoms bang together. To me that is an arbitrary choice that ignores other phenomena that exists like our mental states, consciousness, symbols language and so on.
To prove reality you would need physical evidence (whether you like it or not). I know is a very reductionist argument to use physicalism to prove things do exist.
I wouldnt say it is an arbitrary premise where we do exist just for random circumstances. According to this point, only God's existence can be understood if we say existentialism goes beyond than just atoms banging together.
So tell us how you / we scientifically know that "everything" was created. If you cannot, then you / we do not have any grounds to believe there is / was a "creator" of the universe. :chin:
Hi, gevgala, I appreciate when people lay out their argument; thank you!
Premise 1 seems to assume everything has a starting point, but research in quantum fluctuations has really questioned our assumption of this. Although, saying not everything has a starting point would seem to push me towards the Humian there is no cause and effect camp. I think if at all possible, it seems like we are best to agree with the overwhelming evidence in favor of causation. But that alone doesnt seem to resolve our debate.
Premise 2 definitely highlights the problem of infinite regress, but I don't think this allows us to assert that a designer must've been the starting point. If we assume that everything indeed must have a starting point, then isn't it equally plausible that the universe/cosmos itself is the starting point or that it's the result of some other non-designer process? It seems like theres an infinite array of theories one could come up with for what a necessarily basic anything would be.
The conclusion here does not necessarily follow from the premises. The existence of a starting point does not automatically imply the existence of a designer. It is possible that the starting point could be a natural event or process, which could be explained without invoking a supernatural designer.
Regarding the analogy with Helio Gracie and jiu-jitsu:
The difference seems to be that we have a large amount of historical evidence for Helio Gracie inventing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. In our case, the designer's existence and role as a starting point are purely speculative. Additionally, Helio Gracie was a human being, a product of natural processes. This would differ from the concept of a supernatural designer that exists beyond the natural world.
The problems with that are various. First, it is now understood that the universe emerges from the Big Bang because there are very specific fundamental parameters which, had they been even slightly different, would not have resulted in the formation of any order whatever (see Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees). Second, science itself does not explain the order of nature. It explores the order of nature, to great effect and benefit (although benefit is not the only consequence). But as to why there is an order in the first place, science is mute, as its a different kind of question to the questions posed by naturalism and which are sought in the order of nature. Naturalism, in that sense, assumes an order of nature. To think that it explains that order, is comparable to the belief that the rooster explains the sunrise.
The Designed Designer (or Caused Causer) challenge assumes that the postulated First Cause exists within the normal space-time system of sequential causation. The implicit argument seems to deny a concept that is typically assumed as an axiom by Design proponents : Eternity. "Eternity" (like "Zero") makes no sense from a real-world perspective. The notion of a spaceless & timeless state is an Ideal concept, and is meaningless to a Materialist/Realist. Yet idealistic philosophers play around with non-existent notions all the time. Since Eternity is abnormal though, they may try to make Timelessness more sensible by defining it as an undefined quantity of Time. Which merely dodges the essence of Eternity.
For example, Aristotle made a distinction between Potential & Actual. He didn't present a mathematical definition of "Potential", but today we could think of Potential in statistical terms. A mathematical "state" is an abstract quality similar to Eternity or Infinity, with unlimited possibilities, until a quantity is specified. So a statistical state is unreal (a mathematical variable : X) until something (a Causal input) provokes it to manifest as a real object with real properties & values. That actualization event is similar to a quantum particle that suddenly transforms from a holistic wave into a particularistic piece of matter. The Potential for that particle existed mathematically (Schrodinger's equation) even though the Actual dot of matter was undetectable in its entangled (holistic) state. But in Designer arguments, "Potential" is equivalent to "non-existent", for all practical purposes*1.
Aristotle tried to bypass the non-existent implications of Eternity, as an infinite progression of causation, by proposing a hypothetical "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover", as a logic stopper. Still, the first instance of causation must logically be preceded by some kind of impetus. So, centuries later, Spinoza defined his First Cause as a self-caused Necessary Being*2. And he postulated that the real world is a physical manifestation of a metaphysical Potential. For example, the marble Taj Mahal was the real manifestation of an ideal concept in the mind of the designer : Ustad Ahmad Lahori. Of course, even spooky philosophers can't define a hypothetical Being into real world existence. So, to this day, the Designer of this "Grand Design"*3, remains an Idealistic concept that may or may not be imagined as a completely separate category from normal physical existence. :smile:
*1. What is fallacy first cause? :
This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence. Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing.
https://www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
Note -- Potential is a metaphysical state of being that is able to transform into a physical form of existence. Some thinkers cannot conceive of metaphysical (ideal) existence.
*2. Spinoza's First Cause :
God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
*3. THE GRAND DESIGN
THE MANIFESTATION OF DESIGN
The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes something like this:
1. Complex organization entails designer (or at least: is best explained by design).
2. The universe displays complex organization
3. Therefore the universe is designed (or at least: is best explained by design)
The problem with this is that #1 also applies to a God, because this God has an infinitely complex and organized mind. If an infinitely complex mind can exist without having been designed, then #1 isn't true.