Who Created God?

 

One of the other challenges made to the existence of God is the question, “If God created the Universe, then who created God?” 

This makes the assumption that everything has had a beginning.  According to this belief, if God created the Universe then God must have had a beginning also.  This then raises the question

“Who created whoever created God?” 

and then the question

“Who created whoever created whoever created God?”

and so on.  As you can see you never arrive at the beginning.  This is called an infinite regress, where you  an infinite number of steps backward in time, regressing back in time, and still never arrive at the beginning.

Think back to the Universe having a beginning - the effect of time, space, and matter.  We saw that the only logical explanation for the Universe coming into existence and consistent with the Law of Cause and Effect, is that it was caused  by a being outside of time, space, and matter, and a being as great as or greater than time, space, and matter.

Look again at the definition of The Law of Cause and Effect.  This law states that for anything that has come into existence there must be a cause. Notice that it indicates “For anything that has come into existence, there must be a cause.” It does not indicate, “For anything that exists there must be a cause”.  

Everything that exists is not an effect.  If everything was an effect the Law of Cause and Effect would also apply to the scenario,

“Who (the cause) created God (the effect)?” 

This means that according to the Law of Cause and Effect the who would have to be as great as or greater than God.  Then in the

“Who created whoever created God”

the Who would have to be as great as or greater than the whoever, and the whoever would be as great as or greater than God.  Isn't this starting to sound illogical?  Can you see how this scenario still needs an eternal first cause which/who has always existed?

 

Since it has been proven that the cause of the Universe, (time, space, and matter), existed outside of time, space, and matter, and before time, space, and matter existed.  An infinite, all powerful, and eternal God who exists outside of time, space, and matter is the only logical explanation for the existence of the Universe, and is fully consistent with the law of cause and effect.

Something else to consider.  If the God of the Bible were created by another “greater” God and the God of the Bible is still powerful enough to create the Universe out of nothing, we would still need to satisfy the requirements of this first God, wouldn't we?  It seems that those who would ask the question, If God created the Universe then who created God?” use this as their justification for God not existing, or possibly that there must be a greater God out there, so I don’t have to worry about this “lesser” (according to them) God.

As we’ve seen, an infinite regress of Gods going back  through time past isn’t a logical possibility and violates the Law of Cause and Effect.  You would never arrive at a first cause. 

Infinite regression

www.conservapedia.com/Infinite_regression

What Caused God?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yOLUzuHVEo

Who Created God?

www.str.org/videos/who-created-god#.XCceamhKjDc (video)

www.str.org/articles/who-created-god#.XCcegWhKjDc (article)

If God Created Everything, Who Created God?

www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html

Let’s for the sake of argument say that they are right, and that there is a greater God than the God who created the Universe.  Where does that leave us?  Wouldn't we still need to answer to the God who created the Universe?  We don’t have the option of bypassing the God of the Bible, do we?  What if we decided not to fulfill the requirements of the God who created this Universe and decided to wait for the God who created the God who created the Universe?

Wouldn't this be like the President of the United States sending a representative to a person, and that person saying that they wouldn’t meet with the representative of the President, that they would only talk with the actual President?  Ignoring an audience with the representative of the President and only talking with the President would be a huge insult to the President.  Showing respect to the representative and taking seriously the representative’s message would be expected by the President.  In the same way, it would be insulting and foolish to wait for a possible God who was the creator of the God who created the Universe.  We still need to answer to the God who created the Universe. Do you see how foolish it is to think this way, especially considering the numerous evidences for God?

As well, having a GOD who created God would be in conflict with the Bible, it would prove the Bible wrong, and also violate the Law of Cause and Effect.

1 John 3:20 “for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything.”

Isaiah 44:6 “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

These verses show that God knows everything, that He is the first God and the last God, and besides Him, there is no God.  As you will see in the next section on the evidences for the Bible being from God; if the Bible shows evidence that it is from God, and thus is true, and the above verses are in the Bible, then the above verses are by default, true.  Since God knows everything, and knows that there is no other God, then according to the Bible there can’t be another God who created Him.  This is a valid and logical conclusion. 

Who Created God? 

www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs010.asp

www.compellingtruth.org/who-created-God.html

www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/WhoCreatedGod.html

 

What about someone who might say,

“Since no one was there at the beginning of the Universe then no one can really say whether there was a God or not?” 

Is it necessary that we see the creative act taking place to know that there is a cause?  As an illustration, do you need to see a painting being painted to know that a painter painted it?  If you found a watch on the beach would you think it just happened by accident through the movement of the waves and sand over time?  What about Mount Rushmore?  If you never knew anything about its construction would you conclude that the rain and wind over time shaped the faces of the presidents in the side of the mountain?  None of these would be logical conclusions, would they?

There are a vast number of things in our world which we have never seen being created or built, yet we still know there was a person or persons responsible for the existence of those things.  As such, does it logically follow that since we haven’t see the creative act then we can’t logically conclude that a creator was responsible for the existence of these things?  The other point to realize is that if God is the most logical cause of the Universe and the Bible is shown to be written by God and indicates that God created everything, then there was someone at the beginning of the Universe who was the first cause.  The logical conclusion is that God was there at the beginning and He has provided information for us about the beginning that we can trust.

Revelation 10:5-6  "And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven 6 and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it."

Think about the Atheist belief that there is no God, especially in light of the proof that the Universe came into existence in the past.  The logical conclusion consistent with Atheism is that the entire Universe came about out of nothing with no help whatsoever.  It sprang into existence from nothing.  A fairly direct statement that illustrates this idea effectively is, “Nothing times nothing equals everything”.   This is a theory actually promoted by some Atheistic physicists, that the Universe could come into existence from nothing, with no help from a Creator. 

They propose that quantum mechanics or other forces could generate something out of nothing.  How logical does this sound in light of the Law of Cause and Effect?  In a recent book by Steven Hawking, Steven Hawking claims that with gravity the Universe will come into existence on its own, out of nothing, so there is then no need for God. 

But doesn't their proposed theories ultimately mean that you have either eternal God or eternal gravity, or you have eternal God or eternal quantum mechanics?  This would also apply to anything else any scientist indicates could bring the Universe into existence without God.  If gravity has always existed then we’re faced with the question,

“Where did gravity come from?” 

The existence of eternal gravity  or eternal quantum mechanics doesn't qualify as nothing existing at the beginning as some have claimed, does it?

Another possible problem with having eternally existing gravity or quantum mechanics seems to be similar to the idea of the universe being eternal.  Gravity and quantum mechanics don’t wind down in the way the Universe demonstrates.  However, similar to the realization that everything would have taken place a long time ago if the Universe was eternal, wouldn't the same be true of the gravity or quantum physics lasting forever?  If the Universe could come about with only gravity or quantum physics, wouldn't the Universe come into existence a long long time ago, and have already have wound down?  If gravity and quantum physics haven’t existed for all eternity and came into existence at some time, then wouldn't they be subject to the law of cause and effect?  If so, there would need to be an uncaused cause for gravity and quantum physics.

John Lennox illustrates a major problem with this Gravity/Quantum Physics theory using the illustration of a jet engine in the link below.  He states, 

"The laws of physics can describe how a jet engine works but it doesn't answer why the jet engine exists." 

He adds that

"Laws may be able to answer the how question dealing with function but they can't describe why the jet engine was invented.”  

John Lennox indicates that even with physics and the inventors mind you still need matter.  He states,

“Matter is humble stuff, but it cannot be produced by laws". 

I believe John Lennox also made the following quote which provides an additional clarification of this idea,

“Science nor scientific theory didn't, in fact couldn't have brought the Universe into existence.  The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but science can't cause the movement of the sun.”

When considering the evidence that the Universe had a beginning and then looking at the two options that there is a God or there is no God, which option is more logical to believe?  Remember, don’t choose based upon what is more popular or what you might really want or prefer.  Choose the most logical conclusion based on the evidence.

A Matter of Gravity - Prof John Lennox  

This answers the challenge of Stephen Hawking

 www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xy4gMVlUCE

Bethinking 2/6: John Lennox on Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eHfhbP1K_4

Why Do Some Physicists Talk Nonsense about Nothing?

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/01/why-do-physicists-talk-nonsense.html

Ravi Zacharias Answers Stephen Hawking – Parts 1 and 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMyMmjPgLs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHUh9S6Kg7Y

Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?

www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=4584

Next Page:  The Bible

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now