I do find it so bizarre that the most widely championed book against the existence of God, (The God Delusion) is based on a central argument that is demonstrably fallacious. "Who designed the designer?!" demands biology professor Richard Dawkins. Even worse though, this was not merely dismissed as the ravings of a mad mad. It is echoed by every internet atheist that I encounter.
I might on another occasion dissect the reasoning behind the constant repeat of such poor philosophy. It may just be ignorance. But that is not the point of this article. The point is (and I am certain that it has been done numerous times in the past) answering Dawkins accusation, that the God hypothesis is insufficient in explaining the origin and design of the universe because it immediately raises another tough question, namely, 'who designed the designer?'
I am confident that argument would be universally rejected if not for the atheism that it implies. We recognizes explanations all of the time, and we do so without asking the additional question of the explanation of the explanation. I will adopt Dawkins' principle and apply it to something else in demonstration of this point.
Years ago when archeologists began to discover ruins of the ancient Aztec civilization, with Dawkins' principle in mind, these diggers would be forced to concede that they are not justified in inferring intelligent design, because they do not have any idea where the ruins originate. Before they infer intelligent design from tools or buildings, they must, within Dawkins' model, find an explanation of the explanation.
Alas, unlike Richard Dawkins, I submit that those men would be amply justified in inferring intelligent design, even if they had no idea who the Aztecs were or where they came from. The question of the intelligent designer can be left open for further inquiry. However it would be utterly absurd to propose that this open question negates justification of the observation that buildings and tools suggest intelligent design. You do not need an explanation of the explanation before recognizing an explanation as the best.
Similarly, arguments such as the Teleological argument or the Kalam Cosmological argument are not the unfounded assertion of the Christian God. They are quite simply the inference of intelligent design. The question 'but where did the designer come from' does not even begin to negate the obvious fact that is design. It can be left open for further inquiry.
Upon further inquiry, we find that the designer must be beyond space and time because in the Cosmological Argument From Contingency (can be found in my 'Evidence' section) it is demonstrated that the designer created both space and time. Thus if the designer is beyond them, it is eternal; as Doctor Frank Turek phrases it, God is the uncaused first cause.
Current physics do suggest that the God hypothesis is a strong one. The most common response that opposition offers is "Well someday, maybe it will not." This is quite suggestive of the blanket of faith that the opposition is forced to hide under.
Further, they might offer, "If there was nothing before the Big Bang, how was God there?" I think I amply answered this question while simultaneously answering Dawkins' Who Designed The Designer? God is beyond time and thus not limited by it. God does not require space or time for His existence. He is an infinitesimally simple entity; for He has no parts, no composition. God is an unembodied mind. It is the fruits of that mind that are complex.
Further and finally, I'd like to address another common escape route. That being the subatomic realm which many have proposed proves that the universe can come into existence uncaused out of nothing. This is far from the truth. The quantum model is a sea of fluctuating energy; it is a cause. To quote prominent philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider (Spell check.):
"Vacuum fluctuation models are far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught. The origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. This process includes that causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanic process."
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here