atheism · Bible · Christianity · creationism · God · philosophy · religion · science

Tearing down the ‘who created God’ question

“Who created God? If God created the universe, the earth, and everything on earth, then someone had to create God.” That is the often-asked question and often-stated comment of those who doubt or don’t believe what the Bible says.

However, this argument is based on false assumptions as follows:

1) The law of causality, also known as the law of cause & effect, is misunderstood by them to say that everything and everyone that exists is an effect that had a cause. But the law of causality actually says that everything that has come to be or that has come into existence requires a cause. The Bible never claimed that God came into existence. It instead says that God is from everlasting to everlasting [Psalm 90:2]. He is eternal. He has always existed. So the law of causality does not apply to things that aren’t created.

Not only do the critics show lack of understanding of the law they attempt to use, they also show lack of understanding of what the Bible actually says.

2) Critics of Christianity don’t really understand the laws of thermodynamics & general relativity, although they swear up and down that they love science. The laws of thermodynamics & the theory of general relativity clearly tell us that space, matter, and time must have had a beginning since they are finite and they can eventually run out, wind down, and decay. Since space, matter, and time had a beginning, then that means space, matter, and time have not always existed.

For anything to begin, there always has to be something or someone that caused the beginning, according to the law of causality. Therefore, if space, matter, and time had a beginning out of nothing, an intelligent source not confined to space, nor made up of matter, and not subject to time, had to have created all of it. That intelligent source, based on the vastness of the universe and all the power present in the universe (including on earth), would have to also be much more powerful than everything combined that exists in the universe.

When we also take into account the exactness of planetary orbits, the exactness of each planet’s distance from the sun, and other very exact constants in our universe, there can only be one honest conclusion. Whoever brought all of these things into being would have to be eternal and would have to be a spirit (i.e. immaterial) with a phenomenal, mind-blowing, infinite level of intelligence and power.

Anyone who would be so foolish to deny this really is not truly in love with science and lacks scientific integrity since those who are truly dedicated to science follow wherever the evidence leads, even if the evidence tears down their assumptions. This brings us to the truth which the Bible so bluntly tells us, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” Psalm 53:1, because only a fool would deny such facts.

Further reading:

Don Batten. Who created God: It’s an illogical question. Creation Ministries International.

Frank Turek. Who made God? CrossExamined Blog. April 10, 2008.

Harry A. Gaylord

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Tearing down the ‘who created God’ question

  1. Creation and the created order itself has a language…telling us who God is…as Ravi Zacharias shares so clearly. Thanks for this powerful post and video.

    Like

  2. Current cosmology currently vindicates an acausal beginning to the universe.
    Many apologists (William Lane Craig comes to mind, as does Frank Turek) argue that the universe can not have existed eternally (in an oscillating universe model) because of the philosophical absurdity of eternal existence… therefore God existed eternally(?)
    It sounds like a rhetorical game to define God as the one thing that does not need a cause. Take this empirical premise: “everything that exists began to exist”, you can’t falsify it, and everything I can think of supports it. So, how does God get to be eternal in all of this?

    Like

    1. Allallt, The eternal existence absurdity applies to the universe and the space, matter, and time within the universe. Modern cosmology points to the fact that these all had a beginning so you took the eternal absurdity argument out of context to argue fallaciously. I would refer you back to the law of causality & theory of general relativity. All other models are unfounded wishful thinking.

      Like

      1. General relativity does not apply to a singularity (and cannot until a quantum theory of gravity is developed).
        Modern cosmology does point to this universe having a beginning 13.7 billion years ago. But I was referring to a different argument: the argument that no thing can exist for an infinite time cause that gives you an infinite number of moments which in turn gives you the Zeno Paradox… philosophical absurdity. Oh, except for if God does it.

        See, my point is not fallacious at all.

        Like

      2. Allallt,

        Your words are rather crafty but when unpacked & scrutinized, your argument fails. The philosophical absurdity is your application of your argument to God. You stated “no thing can exist for an infinite time cause that gives you an infinite number of moments which in turn gives you the Zeno Paradox.” But in order to apply this, space, time, and matter must all be present. Space, time, and matter all had beginnings and are finite. God is outside of space, time, and matter. That’s the point I was making. God is a spirit, an eternal spirit, so your argument would not apply. Your argument applies to quantum systems, which God is not. It’s a very simple concept that you wish to complicate intentionally because you refuse to admit under any circumstances that God exists even though you know deep down inside that he really does exist.

        Like

      3. (a) Don’t tell me what I believe, it’s rude.
        (b) I am simply giving you the argument that William Lane Craig and Frank Turek both use in published material.
        (c) If I change the word “moments” to “actions” it is the same argument, but no longer relies on space/time. It never relied on matter.

        Like

      4. Allallt,
        (a) you stated yourself what your beliefs were in your previous comments
        (b) what publications are you talking about? I’m familiar with Turek’s writings and the examples he gives deal with quantum systems having space, time, and matter and would not apply to God.
        (c) change any word you wish but in your previous comment you said your argument is based on Zeno paradoxes, all of which are based on quantum mechanics so space, matter, and time all play a part.

        As I said before, your argument is fallacious and you can’t successfully or honestly try to twist established principles you brought up to try to get the outcome you want.

        Like

      5. (a) And my beliefs are not “you refuse to admit under any circumstances that God exists even though you know deep down inside that he really does exist”.

        (b) I don’t know why you’re talking about quantum systems. I’m simply telling you that Dr. Craig and Frank Turek both claim that if a thing were to exist eternally it would mean that that thing has existed through infinite moments or acts before this point, and this is absurd.
        (c) Nothing about Zeno paradoxes are quantum in nature.

        Like

      6. Allallt,

        (a) When you make statements about cosmology supporting an acausal beginning to the universe (which is unproven) or you question how God gets to be eternal, then deductive reasoning taken from your statements leads to the statement I made about your disbelief in God.
        (b) Maybe I should call the systems I’m referring to as physical systems. But you avoided my question. In what publications did Craig & Turek make the statements you speak of and what were their exact words? You made a statement, now back it up with verifiable facts so I can see for myself if you quoted them correctly.
        (c) When something is quantum in nature, that means it can be quantified or measured. When Zeno spoke of Achilles and the tortoise in a foot race, or his arrow paradox, or the moving rows paradox, all of them spoke of objects that took up space, were made up of matter, and their use of time. So Zeno’s paradoxes are indeed quantum in nature since space, matter, and time can be quanitified.

        Like

  3. When the word ‘Beginning’ was born in Genesis 1:1, then that was only a time that a human being conceptualized the ‘word ‘infinity’.

    Nothing divide by any point of beginning is remain nothing.

    But any point of beginning divide by nothing is a breakdown of mathematics.

    Like

  4. Harry, you are so far off on this thermodynamic thing. You’re creating these pointless semantic logic loops, like a dog chasing his tail. If we are going to talk about these types of well known, and universally accepted laws, let’s focus on the law of conservation of energy for a moment. Energy cannot be created, only transferred, and transformed. Since we know matter and energy to be interchangable (as is commonly proven in nuclear reactions resulting in changing energy into matter, and that matter is simply energy transformed and vice versa, then the building blocks for all matter in the universe have always been here. And god (who you can argue was made up of the original energy that has always been, as energy CANNOT be created) is incapable of “creating” anythin’. Course we can’t be sure that this theory is 100% true in reality, but you can’t choose to accept only the parts of the theory that back your claim while ignoring the parts that call it into question.

    And yes, it is incredibly rude to tell someone what they believe, and that they are lying to themselves. – “because you refuse to admit under any circumstances that God exists even though you know deep down inside that he really does exist.” – Come on man. Are you capable of carrying on a civilized, respectful debate or not?

    I, for examle, would never sit here and tell you that your religion is a laughable fairytale crutch for weakminded people, and that deep down inside you do actually know this… Because that is a blatently inflamatory, and flat out rude thing to do.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s