My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« The Argument From Design -- Now With 40% More Cosmology! Or, Why David Hume Rocks | Main | Dinner, Art, and Class Warfare: The French Laundry »



Actually, from what I remember, Thomas Aquinas argued that it makes sense for God to be the creator of the universe because God is actually *simpler* than the universe. But then again he was using an Aristotelian model of the universe and confused semantics with reality.


From the Autobiography of John Stuart Mill:

It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty, to allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting religion: and he impressed upon me from the first, that the manner in which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known: that the question, "Who made me?" cannot be answered, because we have no experience or authentic information from which to answer it; and that any answer only throws the difficulty a step further back, since the question immediately presents itself, Who made God?


If I may play devil's advocate...I wouldn't say that the complexity of the universe DEMANDS design, but it sure as hell suggests it! Not trying to be mean or anything, 'cuz, you know, we're both kick-ass writers and insanely awesome human beings (smiley face here), but I feel your "beg the question" argument is far less persuasive than you opine.

At least from a biblical standpoint, the question "who created God" is unanswerable because in the Bible God is described as eternal. This simple proposition is quite an elegant counter to your question, "Who designed the designer?" God doesn't need a designer unless we force him into our worldview which states that anything that exists must have had a beginning. While I feel that to be true in the material universe at (?) vibration, why assume it must be true for whatever may be beyond the universe or realms of higher vibration? And I freely admit - the concept of something existing without a beginning completely boggles my finite little mind!!

You ask, "And if the answer is 'nobody,' then why can't that be the answer for the universe?" My personal reason "nobody" can't be the answer for the universe is, again, every material effect in the material universe has a cause. I feel that if God exists, he / she / it must exist on some plane some place that is not material, and not confined to the material laws of physics, and thus not in requirement of a birthday.

As a side note, as far as I know, the only material phenomenon to just come into existence seemingly without a material cause is them damn quantum / quarck particles (I apologize for my murdering of physics here, buy y'all get the point). Those little bastards just "pop" into existence and nobody knows from where. And to me, this strengthens my gut feeling that the material universe hangs upon an immaterial one. Otherwise, from whence does the lowly quarck spring??

And while I'll never ask you to think like me, I would be most honored if you at least considered my opinion a true counter to the question of who designed the designer. I feel it is a real reply.

Okay, gots to go! Thanks again for the mental stimulation!!

From one writer to another,



The point of "who designed God?" isn't solely based on our notion of the laws of physics, but also on the idea that anything that exists must have a logical *reason* (not necessarily physical cause) for existing. So then the question is "Why does god exist rather than not exist"?

Anselm essentially tried to argue that God contained the reason for his own existence as one of his characteristics, but virtually every philosopher has rejected his argument (it might work if you think human categories such as 'perfection' actually exist independent of human minds).

If the answer is that he just exists and doesn't need a reason, then one could say the same thing about the first instant of the universe (or even the universe as a whole).

As far as I know, it isn't suggested that particles literally 'pop' into existence out of absolute nothingness, rather out of a kind underlying energy that fills most of the known universe.


@ Brandon - To clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that quarks popped out of "absolute nothingness" but rather that they come from some non-material field - exactly as you suggest here: "a kind underlying energy that fills most of the known universe" and exactly as I suggest here: "an immaterial universe suspended behind the material one" (paraphrased)

Good catch -



I really like the section on "intention" however as to the arugment of a god (which one?) being eternal I have never heard a theist be able to answer the why question. For example, if god or gods created the universe for a reason but the god/s have always exsisted why have they existed. what is their purpose? I know it's not a major point but sometimes it gets them thinking a little.

Greta Christina

CL, just wanted to let you know: I'm planning to reply to your comment son both posts, but it's ten at night and I just got home half an hour ago, so it ain't gonna be tonight. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. -G

King Aardvark

I had this exact same argument with my wife's pastor. It did not go over well; first, it offended my wife, and second, I don't think the pastor understood the problem at all. He doesn't understand the difference between carbon-14 and carbon-fibre, you see, so I have reason to doubt his intellectual background.


I would be very, very cautious about deriving any sort of philosophical conclusions from the field of quantum physics, particularly since it's one of the most poorly understood fields outside of the lab. My background is history, and my window into this is the argument between men like Heisenberg and men like Einstein. My understanding is that Heisenberg believed his equations and theory properly explained the EFFECTS of the sub atomic world, but not actual nature of that world.

So, yes, some uses of the wave function show that a particals can suddenly appear, along with the appropriate anti-partical to keep the equation balanced. But, firstly, most of the time they mutually annihilate, turning back into background energy. Not really something inspiring. Secondly, maybe that's only what it look like to us. The equations aren't telling us what is actually happening, or what we would see if we could push aside Heisenberg's uncertainty. They are telling us what the effects are, and those effects are simply the sudden appearance and disappearance of certain particles.

But frankly, unless you're part of Fermilab or a similar institution, I'm not sure we should be reaching for Quantum theory to help shape our worldviews. This is one of those fields that is easier to understand the less you know.



It sounds like we're talking about two very different uses of the term 'energy'. I'm talking about energy in the material-universe sense as something that follows deterministic (or probabilistic), generally predictable laws. It sounds you're implying some sort of mystical, supernatural use when you say "an immaterial universe suspended behind the material one"


Excellent and elegant writing as usual, I just discovered this. But you may have left out a very obvious component of the rebuttal: Existence may be "complex" but it sure ain't all "marvelous" or all "beautiful." That little Hindu girl with four arms and four legs sure was complex all right. The only thing marvelous was the skill and charity of the surgeons who fixed God's wondrous design, may they burn in hell for countermanding the Divine Plan.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"


God exists. And he exists by himself.He has no beginning nor no end.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau

  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff