On the existence of “God” or an “Intelligent Designer” as creator of all things.

How do we know whether or not “God” exists? What is “God”? Can anything be known or understood if it is not intelligible and without location? How do we know that a thing exists? It seems to me that all things that can be known to exist must be intelligible necessarily and being able to contemplate that existence is what distinguishes intelligence from that which is not intelligent. To say that all things which are intelligible must originate from intelligence seems a form of solipsism, especially given that the evidence seems to show that the reverse is true.

What qualifies as intelligence could be argued but not likely without persons from any position at least tacitly acknowledging many of the same distinctions between intelligence and the intelligible. The intelligible is that which can be known but intelligence that which it can be known to. It seems to me that it does not follow that intelligence could exist if there were nothing to be known and that the intelligible must precede intelligence because intelligence cannot exist without something intelligible on which to reflect. It does not seem possible that the universe could be born of intelligence, but that intelligence was born of the universe seems evident. To project intelligence onto that which is not intelligent seems to be nothing more than anthropomorphism. We could use the word “intelligence” any way we might wish but it doesn’t mean we wouldn’t make the same distinctions between that which is intelligible and that which is intelligent. To say that “God” exists would mean that intelligence gave rise to the universe but my position is that you cannot have intelligence if there is nothing to be known. Even our own intelligence is sustained by that which is intelligible. If we stopped eating or breathing our material support for our conscious mind would be cut off. It seems to me that for intelligence to exist there must be something to be known and that life depends necessarily on that which is not living to sustain itself. Some might argue that everything was alive and/or self aware, or that the universe was conscious of itself but if this were the case then how would we make any distinction? This is where I part ways with many agnostics and pantheists.

Some might argue that the communication and transferal of ideas qualifies as intelligence, as in the workings of biology and reproduction or functions of a computer but that depends on how you might define an idea and/or intelligence. I wouldn’t consider a computer to be intelligent even though it can do many things which we cannot. I would consider it a tool but I suppose questioning the distinction between it’s functions and consciousness, and whether or not it has anything that would qualify as intelligence in and of itself, would be legitimate but I think it is obvious that the computer depends on us necessarily for it’s utility regardless of it’s capabilities. It has no volition, in and of itself, and no purpose without it’s intelligent creators and this is another point where I part ways with the “believer”. The believer might assume that there would be a sound and valid argument in comparing analogously the computer, as being an intelligent creation of man, and man, as being an intelligent creation of “God”, but this would mean that free will would be an illusion. It seems to me that our understanding of the natural laws and natural world is what gave us the means and reasons to create the computer, and that it’s purpose and utility arose from how it could be used for our purposes within space, time and the natural world and that without the conditions of the natural laws and natural world we would have no means or reasons to create the computer in the first place. It seems to me that to posit that an intelligence was the creator of all things, with no “when and where” to exist without space and time, would lead us to question how it could have knowledge that would permit intelligence. Our intelligence is both sustained by, and depends necessarily on, the material for the “creative” mind to exist and for acts of volition to occur. We depend on those natural laws to be immutable and bound by determinism because this enables us to be aware of our location within it’s bounds and to know that we can take actions to affect change in the otherwise determined course of events by volition. A mind could not exist apart from time, space and matter, in a void with nothing on which to reflect and no time to think or act in volition. It seems to me that the idea of God is in some ways a projection of man’s desire for greater freedom than the natural world allows and that the limits that the natural world and natural laws place on the time that we are allowed to experience the world causes fear and a desire to deny that those limits exist. It seems to me that even speak of something as existing at no place and no time is meaningless. To say that intelligence existed apart from space and time, immaterial and without location, seems absurd and it seems equally absurd to say that an act of volition gave rise to the universe. All evidence points to the contrary. It seems to me that the universe gave rise to intelligence, that consciousness is an emergent property of the material, natural world and that whatever one might call “God” cannot be a “person” or a creative mind. To say that “God” exists at no place and at no time immaterially is to say that “God” does not exist.