Intelligent Design Question
I’ve been thinking about this idea advanced by some Christians of “Intelligent Design”, where the basic thought is that because we appear to be designed we must be the product of a designer. Seems like a sensible enough idea, and supports the Christian idea of a Creator and a Creation.
As I reflect on this idea, my question is “Who designed the Designer?”
If Christians reply to this question with “No-one, God is outside of time and space and simply IS”, then I could just as easily say this reasoning could apply to everything, including the known universe.
If I remove the duality and simply view everything as being part of All That Is, then “the Designer” and “the Designed” become one and the same and the question dissolves into nothing (or everything!).
Works for me.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | P on The God of Hell |
 | Steve Philbrook on What are the odds of that… |
| Steve Philbrook on Two questions which deeply puz… |
 | Amie on The right and wrong that is… |
 | Manual Gschwind on The right and wrong that is… |
| » And Now For… on Singing Idealistic Lies (… | |
 | Anonymous on Movement creates opportunity |
 | Alex on James was wrong |
 | Bryan Riley on James was wrong |
 | Cleaus on Two questions which deeply puz… |
 | susanft on Relationship Poem |
 | terrance mallory on Pick a universe … any… |
 | Sue Ann Edward on What are the odds of that… |
 | jonfeatherstone on What are the odds of that… |
 | Neil on What are the odds of that… |
Jon's New Age Wanderings 
“God is outside of time and space and simply IS”, then I could just as easily say this reasoning could apply to everything, including the known universe.”
The flaw in this reasoning is that something cannot exist outside of time and place and be conditioned by time and space at the same time.
“simply view everything as being part of All That Is, then “the Designer” and “the Designed” become one and the same and the question dissolves into nothing (or everything!).”
Bingo! Now…between a nothing (0) and an everything (1), which is the Identity of Value? (consider to ‘value’ means to ‘love’)
What is considered Real to ‘God’ is whatever remains changeless. Everything that does change is considered an illusion simply because of the fact it changes.
After posting the above, I thought of this. You’ve seen it before…thought you might enjoy seeing it again.
Know why we forget? So we can remember better.
“Revelation of the Mystery of the Cross”, from The Acts of John, Christian Apocrypha) Chapters 97-102:
“John, there must be one man to hear these things from me; for I need one who is ready to hear. This cross of light is sometimes called logos by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes a door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes seed, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes Life, sometimes Truth, sometimes Faith, sometimes Grace; and so it is called for men’s sake.
But what it truly is, as known in itself and spoken to us, is this: it is the distinction of all things, and the strong uplifting of what is firmly fixed out of what is unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, being wisdom in harmony. But there are places on the right and on the left, powers, authorities, principalities and demons, activities, threatenings, passions, devils, and the inferior root from which the nature of transient things proceeded.
This cross then is that which has United all things by the Word and which has separated off what is transitory and inferior, which has also compacted all things into One.”
Thanks for this. I love the way A.H. Almaas put this in a talk I saw him give recently — that the big bang never actually ended, and it’s still happening, in that the universe is changing and redesigning itself in every moment.
You may ask that question indeed, but it’s somehow philosophical and ultimately senseless. The problem lies with(in) reality itself: things don’t just pop into existence, for instance (as they did with the Big Bang). Nor do Sphinxes form because of dust carried over by the wind, or by natural errosion (though this one did). Nor does carbon, or huge strings thereof, possess self-conscience. Reality somehow manages to subtly contradict itself, and yet still exist nonetheless. Question: how? and why?
Lucian,
How and Why indeed!
I got the most sense answering this question from reading “Conversations with God” Book 1 which discusses this in great detail and provides a neat answer that I find satisfying. It explains the paradox of All That Is being All That Is, and yet within this is also That Which Is Not All That Is. Delicious contradiction and mystery! All That Is creates something other than itself so it can experience itself! For instance, it knows itself to be generous, but cannot experience Its generosity unless there is need (Not All That Is) that it can give to. Delightful!
Jon
PS: Looking at your picture, man you look a lot like Luther! 🙂
Lol, try explaining that one to the intelligent design proponents! 😀
I always use that argument against the idea of a God that is anything (rather than just IS). If he created everything, who created him? I’m even open to the idea that there could be one most powerful being. But even if he exists, God with a capital G is the nothingness from which all things originate.
Andrew