Now if God is infinity by definition as he is the infinite cause of the causes he is the logical result of the infinite regression as he is only found in the infinity. As such God would not have to be part of a different entity of not created elements. Any entity acquiring more of God’s elements thus approaching +infinity actually results in -infinity by definition.

I never understood the “infinite regress” problem that some people attempt to use to say that “God must then exist and be [blank].” It would seem to me that you any finite regress and *then* an eternal creator is just as possible logically as saying “God was our cause.”

Lennox: ‘But most people don’t believe...’

Big whoop. Beliefs are irrelevant in the context of something being demonstrably true. A belief cannot distinguish between a myriad of equally possible outcomes.

Maybe Big Bang created a creator of life . and then the creator caused life . I think the big bang was so huge it created a creator in a certain time and than the creator cause life . Then the creator left everything . That is why scientists and theoretical physicists can’t find any findings of this.

And the creator caused the afterlife in another dimension of the universe. Scientists will never find this.

I don’t feel that God needs to be created on the grounds that God was the Word and the spirit; the law giver, law former and heavenly protecter. Who can manipulate his laws and dwell among us as the word made flesh?

God does not have a physical form (at least not in our, currently, comprehendable dimension) and it is therefore not difficult to comprehend his omnipotency.

IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?

Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:

“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”

Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support for our project.

God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.

Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration that there is also a God. In other words, if God is there, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they do not know that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making the calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made the calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then scientists have shown that both the total mass and energy of the universe including God are zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God is also light, and therefore He is spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.

Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!

It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero.

So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?

But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there. 
H. S. Pal

I believe in a God. Fair enough to say “The more complex something is, the more improbable”, but I don’t believe a God would necessarily be complex.

I would like to say the opposite: Whatever gave rise to all the laws and rules in existence isn’t restricted by those laws. If it is not restricted by laws, we can call it all-powerful. God may be all-wise/all-powerful etc precisely because he is not complicated.

Belief in Religion is something that fascinates me a lot. I have watched the above video twice now. And I must say it is a smartly formulated answer to the questions asked - but a satisfactory response, not to me.

Lennox responds to Dawkins’ “schoolboy argument” (who created the creator) simply by stating that the christian god exists eternally. How ironic.

Lennox knows very well that Dawkins is NOT talking about idols, but (among others) about the eternal god of christianity. So why does he make it look otherwise? It’s painfully obvious how spiteful Lennox’s response is, despite his efforts to look composed.

Lennox then goes on to say that it “could be that Richard Dawkins has difficulty wtih the notion of the uncreated”. The fact that Lennox takes one whole minute just to get to the core of Dawkins’ argument, speaks volumes.

Lennox now asks: “Does he (Dawkins) believe that matter and energy have existed forever?” It is easy to predict where Lennox heads from here on, but a few points come to my mind here: I’d like to know where and when Dawkins has ever claimed to know the answers to such a question - he doesn’t, of course, and neither does anyone else on the face of the earth.

So why does Lennox stress this point so clearly, argueing that “the problem must be that they can believe in something eternal, but they can’t believe in an eternal person, an eternal god”, when it is obvious that Dawkins has never claimed to believe in ANYTHING eternal? 

Mr Lennox’s problem seems to be that to him, the category of UNKNOWN is empty, to put it in his own elegant terms. This means that to him, the answer to the question of wether or not anything has existed eternally has to be either YES or NO, but never WE DONT KNOW.

Lennox finishes by stating that Dawkins is “thinking of created gods”. Well, if that were the case, Mr Lennox could have given a far shorter comment, couldn’t he? 

The christian god is ETERNAL, he sais. Well that sorts it then doesn’t it.

How ironic for him to speak of “schoolboy arguments” when quoting Dawkins… I’m sorry but i find this man very inpolite.

I am not sure that ‘eternal’ is an appropriate description of God. The big bang theory implies that both space and time as well as matter were created in the big bang. There was no ‘before’ and no ‘where’ for the universe to be created into.

God is hence ‘beyond’ both time and space whereas ‘eternal’ implies some temporal existence.

‘Who created the creator?’ implies a before and after and a cause and effect. The question is only meaningful in the context of time and space and not in their absence.

I like the argument of John… Dawkins is thinking of created gods, which are many, and only those can be called delusion… Dawkins himself acknowledges that in the page 53 of his book, when he clearly agrees that truth or god come at the end of the process of scientific inquiry… Mr Dawkins you and I are ephemeral… Will you wait for the end of experiment? I wont wait for sure… Jesus is my lord and savior… Peace.

The question “if God created the universe, then who created god”, can satisfactorily be address by the following logic:
I regard God as the “supreme and eternal intelligence”, by nature spirit.
Modern cosmology has finally proved that the universe came into existence around fourteen billion years ago.
At that event, TIME was created as well as energy (later to partially condense to matter (in the formation of hydrogen)
- hence we now call it SPACE/TIME. There is therefore NO “Time”, as we can know it, before “the Big Bang”, which created it.
For that reason we can never know anything scientifically “before or outside of Time”, or outside of this universe.
The very laws of nature came into existence at that moment and for us, can only apply within it.
A supreme designer, who conceived those laws, existing outside the constraints of TIME, is the only logical conclusion…
i.e an eternal being. The God of the Bible told Moses at the “burning bush, I AM, WHO AM”.
Jesus said “before Abraham, I AM”.
A leap of faith is needed finally whether theist or atheist, but a “Multiverse”, would seem to be just TOO great, when Christ
offers such hope.

Dr Lennox’s argument simply comes down to arbitrarily defining the god he believes in as “uncreated” and, hey presto, problem solved.  I am going to define two groups of things, those that belong to me and those that don’t.  I have just placed Dr Lennox’s house in the category of things that belong to me.  Keys please.

Hello!

Below is my brief review of Richard Dawkins’ who-designed-the-designer objection, which appeared in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2010): 119-122. The who-designed-the-designer objection is basically the same objection as the who-created-the-creator objection addressed by Professor Lennox in the above video. I think that what I’ve written will nicely complement (and strengthen) Professor Lennox’s case, so I present it here.

(What follows is a slightly edited version of what appeared in Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics. I encourage interested readers to subscribe to this fine journal.)

Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion now has sold over 1.5 million copies, has been translated into over 30 languages, and recently has been re-issued in paperback.  In the book’s crucial fourth chapter, ‘Why there almost certainly is no God,’ Dawkins argues that the objection/question ‘Who designed the designer?’ blocks any inference to a designer.  In this brief review I will argue that this important objection is a philosophical failure.

First I will clarify the objection.  Then I will set out my critique.

According to Dawkins’ who-designed-the-designer objection, appealing to an intelligent designer to explain nature’s complexity (a.k.a. apparent design) is to pass the explanatory buck.  The intelligent designer hypothesis merely transfers the mystery of nature’s complexity, which is the puzzle to be explained, to the mystery of the designer’s complexity, which is a new puzzle to be explained.

More specifically, Dawkins argues that because the complexity of the natural world is highly improbable, and because the intelligent designer must be at least as complex as the complexity of the natural world that’s being explained by the intelligent design hypothesis, it follows that the intelligent design hypothesis must be at least as improbable as the natural world (113-114).  But, Dawkins argues, this is to explain one improbability by another improbability as great as, or greater than, the first improbability (114).  What is worse, this also raises the question of the origin of the designer, thereby adding yet another layer of improbability to explain the additional complexity of the designer’s designer (120).  And what about the complexity of the designer of the designer’s designer?  And so on, ad infinitum (120).

Because of this unending regress of additional improbabilities, Dawkins thinks that the God hypothesis cannot be a rational explanation for the apparent design found in nature.  Thus, according to Dawkins, God is illusory.  In addition, Dawkins would have us believe, we are all stuck with the logical implication that some atheistic form of evolution, Darwinian and/or other, must have created the apparent design (158).

Clearly, as Dawkins himself seems to realize (157-158), the who-designed-the-designer argument is the crucial philosophical foundation of The God Delusion.  If the who-designed-the-designer argument fails, then so do Dawkins’ hopes for an atheistic explanation.  So the question arises: Is Dawkins’ who-designed-the-designer argument logically sound?

I think not, for two reasons.

First, intelligent designer explanations are accepted in science even if the designer is complex e.g., in archaeology (to explain cave paintings and arrowheads), in cryptography (to explain codes), and in forensic science (to explain who dunnit).  In fact, in these sciences the designer is even more complex than the objects or phenomena explained, yet the designer hypothesis is scientifically legitimate.  If we were to accept Dawkins’ who-designed-the-designer objection, then - to be logically consistent - the aforementioned explanations would not be legitimate.  But they are legitimate.  Thus, it’s false that the complexity of a designer makes a design hypothesis improbable.

Second, the issue of the complexity and origin of a designer simply has no bearing on the process of determining whether something is designed.  Consider the science known as SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence).  In SETI the intelligent design hypothesis is allowed to explain ET’s communications (if they were to occur); moreover - and significantly - whether the alleged message is truly a message from ET depends not at all on our knowledge of ET’s complexity or origin, but solely on whether the message displays design.

How do we discern design?  Think about some long words in a Scrabble game, or consider some sophisticated computer software.  Or imagine, say, the discovery of strange complex machinery on Mars.  Or recall the messages from outer space in the movie Contact.  The way to discern whether something is designed is to determine whether the thing is (1) highly improbable via non-intelligent causes and (2) strongly analogous to things we know from empirical experience to be designed by intelligent causes.

Who designed the designer?  Perhaps the designer just is (and always has been).  Or not.  Perhaps the designer is complex.  Or not.  The point here is that we need not understand the nature of a designer (i.e., whether it’s complex or not) or even the origin of a designer (whether it has a designer or not) to determine that something has been designed.  Therefore, as an alleged block to discerning a designer from its designed effects, the who-designed-the-designer objection is beside the point - it’s not relevant.

To recap, Dawkins’ who-designed-the-designer objection has two major flaws: it is based on a falsehood, and it is basically irrelevant.  In other words, the objection that constitutes the philosophical foundation of The God Delusion is (to put it mildly) a philosophical blunder.

Significantly, nature’s apparent design remains and continues to suggest an Intelligent Designer.

Many religions exist...Atheistic Evolutionary Theory is just the next..their god is the Big bang, their savior is Darwin, and his disciples are the likes of Dawkins, Gould and Mayr.

We Christians believe what we believe, we’ve survived the rise and fall of many religions...we haven’t let fanatics deter our faith, just as many evolutionists with respect to their fanatics…

No one can be won over through clever argument, or persuasion. Every battle is won on your knee in prayer. If they chose to dismiss us, we must dust our feet of them, and let them take their chances with God, it’s not our battle.

If evolutionists are so comfortable with their belief (or Theory that is), why do they try so hard to discredit all the other religions and justify themselves, what is their motivation I ask??

It cannot be spreading the truth. If you are atheist, there is no consequence to knowing the truth apart from self refinement. You live, you die, you cease to exist, there is no ultimate consequence, so why does an evolutionist care if someone believes in a religion if they aren’t affecting anyone else...in a time of scientific freedom why do evolutionists try so hard to convert to their cause…

Answer me this.

Andy well said, I agree totally, why do they get so personal
and nasty. What’s the problem? Just like you, christians are
a meek lot, usually helping anyone they can, even if they
don’t deserve it. They all seem to come up with this argument
of wars in the name of religion, e.g. Northern Ireland, etc.
This is quite pathetic really, because it’s like saying,"I once
heard something bad happened somewhere, so I’m very sceptical
about anyone from there”.
The truth is it’s a spiritual world and they hate us.

Perhaps someone could explain something to me?

I’m a born-again Christian, and my faith is based on evidence, but, for the sake of argument, what if I, along with all my fellow Christians are mistaken. If I spend my life following principles and values which are basically good, such as ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ and ‘be kind and compassionate to one another’ etc, what harm am I doing to other people? All the Christians I know, do good things on a regular basis. (Those people who have done bad things in the name of Christianity, aren’t true Christians; the bible does warn us that some in the Church will be false). My question is, what is the motivation behind people like Richard Dawkins and anyone else who campaigns against biblical belief?

If atheists really think our beliefs are ridiculous, why even bother trying to refute them. Again, what’s the real motive behind it?

Has Christianity messed up the world? Do the teachings of Jesus screw people up? Have people like Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King damaged the world irrevocably? I could understand people vehemently campaigning against any beliefs that threaten a return to nazism, but Christianity?

If Christians are wrong, what will the eternal consequence be? If the atheist is wrong about the Bible,.........?

Jonathan Moreyia wrote:

“But that’s where the problems arise: at this point, EVERY religion uses special pleading to grant their particular deity exemption from the physical laws from the creatures/"watches" they create.”

The maker of a car cannot by definition be him/herself subject to the inner workings of the car, because he/she is not part of the car. Otherwise this would imply self-creation which is self contradictory.

In the same way, the creator of ALL physical reality CANNOT be subject to the laws of physics, because he/she/it CANNOT be part of its own creation.

A creator of anything has to be outside the system of what he/she creates. If not, it resolves in self-contradiction. This is logically inescable.

So this isn’t special pleading at all.

“2. The something that was created is less intelligent then its creator. So to say that matter created itself is absurd ive never seen something create itself in the 3D world. have you? or am i crazy.”

This analogy fundamentally fails in logic. It explains one reason why the Watchmaker Argument is so riddled in fallacy. The watch, of course, is “less intelligent” (whatever that means, and of course, you haven’t defined the term) than the watchmaker… but the watchmaker, in every single way, without a doubt, is subject to the same physical laws as that watch.

But that’s where the problems arise: at this point, EVERY religion uses special pleading to grant their particular deity exemption from the physical laws from the creatures/"watches" they create. You cannot compare a watch being created to the universe being created, because the “creator” is given abilities outside of what its creation has! So the analogy utterly fails!

“...God is outside of our parameters so therefore he doesnt have to be created...”

Oh goodie! Special pleading! So therefore, by your definition (and by Dr. Lennox’s), a god is valid because the arguer’s god fits within THEIR parameters! So therefore, you have proven EVERY SINGLE DEITY AND MYTHICAL CREATURE OUT THERE!

Also to say that the universe is eternal without a creator is absurd. To say that matter was always here and needed no creation is a copout in a way because we observe matter in science ever day everyone observes matter we know that it cant create something just as complex as itself. We know of two rules that apply to this argument. 1. something within our parameters of the world has to be created by something, this is what we observe everyday and have never observed differently. 2. The something that was created is less intelligent then its creator. So to say that matter created itself is absurd ive never seen something create itself in the 3D world. have you? or am i crazy.

Show me something within our realm that has not been created. anything. By the observable standpoint everything has been created so why do we think differently about the beginning of our universe. A lot of you missed what this article says, which is that God is outside of our parameters so therefore he doesnt have to be created. Or maybe he was you really dont know, read deutoronomy 29:29. Try to comprehend what it would be like to be in a 4th dimension. Imagine what you would look like. Imagine the rules of that dimension and also how do you live in that dimension. You cant even begin to comprehend what the 4th dimension looks like. Maybe God is within another dimension where things can create themselves where matter is actually self-existent. But as we know in our parameters of our universe matter has never been self-existent so why believe in self-existent matter. My ultimate point is that we know for our universe that there has to be something that created it or put it into motion since matter is not self-existent. We know nothing else about any other dimension or its parameters and how physical laws work if there are any within that dimension. Just because you cant comprehend God doesnt mean he’s not real. Some people cant even comprehend the complexities of this earth but yet those things are still factual. I dont see how this is a hard concept for athiest to grasp it bewilders me at times.