How does God help us? (Based on the physico-theological argument)

There are two tests: the test of causality (cosmological) and the test of complexity (physico-theological).
I was talking about the test of complexity. Just as the world must be asked who designed it, since it is complex, so too must God be asked who designed it, since it is complex. And instead of stopping after God (with his reality) and saying that God does not need a designer (in order not to reach regression), let's stop before God (without him) and say that the world does not need a designer.
What does God add to my equation that solves something for me?

But also from the point of view of causality, we can say that there is a first “there” before the Big Bang, which is the first in the chain at the end of which the world was created.
And here too, there is no reason to prefer God who gave a reason for why there is a first “there”because even God himself needs a reason and it is better to stop before God (without him) and start only with a first non-rational one.

Thank you very much.

By the way, I knew this was a recurring question, but I think the wording of the question now and its meaning are different.

The same meaning, and this formulation itself came up here yesterday or the day before yesterday (the difference between existence and complexity). The complexity in the world from our experience distills a component, and God who is not in our experience does not.
The first entity that begins the chain is God. I have not said anything about it beyond that. Therefore, suggesting that it is a different entity is about like saying that the person who wrote Macbeth is not Shakespeare but his cousin who was also named Shakespeare.
The question of whether he is an intelligent being or not is another question that has also been asked here many times. I answered that an unintelligent being (a machine) itself needs a creator/component, and therefore it is more likely that it is an intelligent being. What's more, revelation and the argument from morality convey to us the information that he is indeed intelligent.

Regarding complexity: Obviously, things that are not in our experience are also like things in our experience and there is no reason to assume that they are not like that
In addition to why when something is not in our experience we no longer need a component for it, the reason we want everything to be complex is because it makes sense that something that is complex would have a component, so what does it matter if it is in our experience or not?

And regarding causality: The first being I meant is the being as a kind of hyolic matter from which everything began (without God). It is better to say that he is the first cause and not God, and he does not answer more than God regarding the first cause. Not as a component but as a cause, God does not answer more than hyolic being.

My soul is in my question. Excuse me. I would be happy if someone, especially the rabbi, could answer.

For some reason, I missed that. Sorry.

If you assume that every complex needs a component, you end up with an infinite regress. The most likely solution is to assume that there is something (probably not the kind in our experience) that does not need a component.

Regarding causality, I explained that the two lines of evidence are congruent. From the cosmological perspective, there is perhaps room to talk about a mechanical creator, although even there it is less likely because such a being is probably not its own cause.

Regarding complexity, the Rabbi basically answered that apparently the complex that does not need a component is not in our experience.
And it is better to add an entity that is not in our experience and is the first complex that does not have a component, than to prefer not to add an entity and say that the universe itself is the complex that does not have a component because it is in our experience and we know that usually things in our experience have a component.
Makes sense.
But the Rabbi did not answer “why” because obviously the things that are not in our experience are also like the things in our experience and there is no reason to assume that they are not like that
And the explanation that a complex thing needs a component is a logical explanation that does not depend on experience, and therefore it does not matter whether the complex thing is in our experience or not – in any case it will need a component!

The same thing regarding causality, the Rabbi basically answered that apparently the first cause is not a mechanical being because it is less likely that such a being would be its own cause.

The Rabbi is basically saying that it is better to add an intelligent entity (which is a blatant violation of Hokam to add intelligence) because it is simpler for an intelligent being to be its own cause than to add an irrational entity that is unlikely to be its own cause. Makes sense.
But the Rabbi did not explain “why” it is less likely for an irrational being to be its own cause than for an intelligent being to be its own cause?

The first was explained. The second seemed obvious to me, but in any case I explained that it fits in with the tradition from Sinai.

Forgive me, Rabbi, I didn't understand. In my opinion, Rabbi didn't answer the question
*Why* apparently what doesn't need a component is not of the type in our experience. If it can't be assumed that it is different than the type in our experience.
Why assume that the type that isn't in our experience is different from the type in our experience and based on that come to the conclusion that there is another entity that composed everything and doesn't need a component instead of saying that the world itself doesn't need a component?
And what else does it matter if it's in our experience or not, since the fact that a composition needs a component stems from logic and not from experience.

In addition, I didn't understand *why* intelligent creation is more logical and of course it goes without saying that it would be the cause of itself than non-intelligent creation. Surely Rabbi doesn't mean that God created himself, and if so, what does it depend on his intelligence?

I'm sorry. Everything has been explained. There's no point in going over it again and again.

The Rabbi answered with complexity: that the component of the compound is probably not of the type in our experience
and did not explain why. And also with causality, the Rabbi answered that the mechanical conservation of a being is probably not its own cause. And did not explain why

That's not what I answered. My argument is that what is not in our experience is not necessarily complex. And even if it is, it does not need a component. Because if it does, we get caught in an infinite regress. And if we need to exclude something from the rule that a complex needs a component, it is better to exclude what is not in our experience.
A machine is not its own cause. I don't see what I need to add here.