[Celtic Cross]

"By your process, if one believes that there is proof of God's existence, then God himself must surely have been designed by someone."

Nope. You cannot apply the physical limitations of a creation to a spiritual, metaphysical being.

An analogy; as a programmer, I can make a game with limitations of my choosing. I can program sprites that will be subject to an animation-loop for a set period of time. None of these limitations apply to me. The very concept of an animation-loop does not apply to me.

[Trod Upon]

Nope. You cannot apply the physical limitations of a creation to a spiritual, metaphysical being.

Says who? And why not? But never mind, because I am applying the logic that if a thing or being exists, it must exist by some design. The question of whether its existence is physical or metaphysical in nature is not really relevant to the rule stated. With your program/programmer example you are answering a different question and taking as your basic premise what you seek to prove, namely that programmer and program can never be subject to the same rule [an aside: what about programs written by programs?]. That is why the analogy fails. The stated rule as I read it does not assume anything other than existence as the precondition for being a product of design (a rule I disagree with, BTW). The problem is that the whole question being debated is really "is there a program at all?" A program assumes a programmer, but an uncreated universe is not a program and requires no programmer; it just is. In a sense it is "God," just not as we traditionally understand the concept.