Other Answer, Same Questions

I sometimes sponge on the feedback to CMI. 1) I look up the top of the article, copy the questions; 2) I do NOT immediately scroll down below them; 3) and I first answer them myself, then only after that look up how someone on CMI answered.

This article is a good occasion to play that game again.

God, the universe, tolerance and suffering
Feedback 2008
https://creation.com/god-the-universe-tolerance-and-sufferingamdashbig-questions-from-a-curious-seeker

1) If complexities and the personal weakness to explain those* does document the manifestations of god, does this mean that ...

... is a manifestation of god? Because I really can not explain this to me and, hey, it’s really complex. (Sorry, it’s bad rhetoric, but maybe a good example for the sub-question: Are things so very complex because they are designed or because we are so stupid?)

2) If god is beyond time and space, what is beyond god?

3) This universe is big and has many beings–maybe even many planets with life-whichever. Therefore what’s beyond this universe must even be bigger and more impressive. Where in that giant beyond is god? And why just one if it is so big?

4) Design requires a creator. It can be assumed, that the creator must be at least similar complex than the creator’s design. That results, that the creator must be complex, therefore designed. Who design the creator? Who designed god?

5) Could you very personal imagine having a beer with a black, Jewish Homosexual–and enjoying it?

6) There is stabbing in Melbourne, sexual misuse of Children, war etc. Mankind pollutes earth, reduces the amount of animal races. Is this the behaviour of god’s finest? Or could earth & us be just a kind of first try and the really good top designs are somewhere else?

Here are my own answers.

1) We are not speaking of "manifestations of God" in the sense of theophanies. Traces of God in organised complexity beyond what man can have done.

And note, it is not about simple complexity, but about one organised around a simple goal or being.

The mathematic laws are in a sense traces of God, and perhaps some of them even manifestations (God being one in three certainly means the three first numbers have their root in God Himself and are not just created by Him). And our ability to understand and apply them are an image of God.

2) Regress into infinity is a bad move in either logic proof or explanations.

3) God is not big, but infinite. God took on finite form, in Jesus, but in Himself is infinite.

4) Here is a false conclusion : "the creator must be complex, therefore designed"; and here is a false premiss : "It can be assumed, that the creator must be at least similar complex than the creator’s design."

What the false premiss is really trying to say is that one design, however impressive, doesn't exhaust the mind that made it, correct, but the impressiveness of the mind does not actually come from complexity, but from simplicity. God being perfectly simple means He needs no designer.

5) If the beer was good and in this case the word homosexual referred to lesbian, yes. Plus no bad talk about Our Lord or Our Lady.

Or if the homosexual man had decided to marry a woman (obviously not foolinger her about his condition, but either she knows because she's also lesbian, or anyway).

6) The really "good designs" are what we get when God sifts away the damned into Hell and resurrect the blessed into glory and into Heaven. In this life, we are works in progress, and some may be already irredeemably broken even before they die, but we usually do not know which ones./HGL

PS, after editing some detail above, I'll log out and see the answer by Andrew Lamb./HGL

* In fact, it is not about failing to explain, it's about seeing naturalistic explanation one after another fail, and undestanding very well with a supranaturalistic one.