1. A known designer is not required by Intelligent Design - you don't need to know who designed the designer when you discover an arrow - you know it was designed. (Can be applied the the fine tuned universe, DNA, rare earth, consciousness, etc...)
2. We know the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and if there was an infinite past we would never arrive at the present. As I have pointed out, logical reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover – the Prime Mover. If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes which is logically incoherent (who designed the designer). Furthermore, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from outside of nature. You have not addressed this...
3. From a theological Judeo-Christian standpoint, your question becomes "who made God" - that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. I don't know any Christian who believes God was created. It just becomes an absurd question you might hear a child ask.
4. In order to explain the fine tuned universe, the multiverse has been postulated - an infinite amount of universes and we live in one of the lucky ones. But theoretically with infinite universes, ironically you could have a universe with god-like beings and even an universe with you as a televangelist. But ultimately it is all meaningless... This is where I would appropriately refer to the theologian friar William of Ockham
Now the question of 'who designed the designer' is most famously put forth by Dawkins in his book The God Delusion which Michael Ruse reviewed and stated, "would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing". Which brings me back to your belief that your brain ultimately came from mindlessness and where this leads. Here is a Dawkins interview from October 2006:
Dawkins:….What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. ….Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.
This is the absurd logic you are left to live with...
did you just say that a man who can make an arrow doesn’t need a designer? Yes you did. I’m glad you finally see my position. I’m not a Christian so the intellectual limitations and blinders that have hobbled them for centuries do not trouble me.