Who Made God?

“Who made God?”

I get asked this question very often and was told only yesterday by another Christian they, too, hear this question often. Who made God?

During a recent school outreach this question came up again but it was being posed by a youth leader as an example of the tough kind of question teens ask. Perhaps this youth leader was surprised when I responded by saying it is a silly question. It is a nonsense question.

They looked baffled. Does the question baffle you?

It need not do so. You see, this is a nonsense question because God, by definition, is uncreated. God has no cause. God has no beginning. No one made God. This is not a faith issue. Rather, simple logic demands an uncaused God.

First, here is what the Bible says:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”

“From everlasting to everlasting You are God…”

Before anything else was created, God was there. In the beginning, before everything else, God was present. From all the way into the everlasting past to all the way into the everlasting future, God is God.

Now, on to the logic. There must be something which causes everything else but which is not caused. This something is God. More on this in a moment. Why must there be this Uncaused Cause? Logic demands the existence of just such a thing.

Imagine a long line of freight train storage cars (boxcars to the Americans, trucks to the Brits). This long line of cars might be really, really long. This line might be incredibly detailed and full of incredible variety. Yet this line is going nowhere without an engine to start it off. So the car in the front is being pushed by the car behind it. That car behind the first car is being pushed by the third car. The third car is being pushed by a fourth car. And so on and so on. Yet unless there is an engine at the beginning of the line which is pushing without needing to be pushed then the whole line is going nowhere.

So swap in “cause and effect” for the cars in the above illustration. The things we see now are ‘effects’ which have been caused by the things before them, which were caused by the things before them, which were caused by the things before them. Just like the train cars need an engine to start the whole line moving, so this whole universe full of ‘effects’ requires a cause to start the process. This cause must not have a cause or the process never begins.

In short, this cause must be eternally causing all other things to be.

There we have it – or God, to be more specific. Who made God? No one. God has been eternally causing all other things.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Who Made God?

Add yours

  1. The entire article can be summarised as follows: The question of who created god (or what is the origin of god) is a nonsense question because logic demands an uncaused god. Because…
    1. The bible says so.
    2. There must be something which causes everything else but which is not caused in itself because every effect demands a cause but this must have a beginning else the entire event has no cause – This initial start is god.

    This makes the entire article either a satire or a silly response in which the author does not understand the implication of the question nor the inadequacy of the answers presented.

    ———————————

    So, Point 1) ‘The bible says so’ is never a good reason because to rely on the bible you must first establish that the bible is a reliable source for expounding on the supernatural accounts of reality. This must be an independent verification – NOT relying on the text itself as support of its own validity because no source can attest to itself. I can make any claims I want as to my qualification and expertise but it requires an independent assessor to confirm it.

    We would not accept anyone saying they are qualified to perform a complicated medical surgical procedure without knowing that they at least went to medical school, if not also demanding an independent evaluation from the hospital as to their performance.

    If we do not demand an independent measure then we would equally have to accept that any text which claims authorship over the truth must be taken as the truth. This leaves no method of eliminating or distinguishing between any of so called ‘holy’ texts. So the Koran would have to be just as valid and just as correct as the Vedas, the Tao Te Ching, the Eddur, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Iliad, the Tipitaka, Dianetics, the Rasa’il al-hikmah, the Kojiki, the Book of Mormon, or Harry Potter.

    Independent evidence for the bible is not given here (or even alluded to) and therefore the bible can not be taken as an authority over the traits of god till this evidence is presented and assessed to a satisfactory level. So the bible does not prove the existence of god any more than the books of harry potter prove the existence of voldemort.

    ———————————

    Point 2) the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical start to finish. Here are 5 reasons for it:

    Firstly, why must there be an initial cause? Why can the universe not be just simply one long chain of events for eternity? Isn’t that exactly how you describe god to be, ‘an eternal series of thoughts, desires, and existence’ – i.e.: and eternal series of cause and effect (thought and reflection)? So, you have not explained why the universe can not be an infinite series of unstopped cause and effect.

    Secondly, even if you can logically show that an initial cause must exist, then why is god exempt? Why does a god NOT require an initial cause? You have not explained why, if there is a beginning, it must start with god and not at some earlier stage – except to say that it is defined this way, but the definition is just a word, a name – not an explanation. And an explanation must be illuminating. It must use simpler terms to clarify the concept else it is not an explanation and this term does not illuminate or clarify anything. It is just a term – a definition – a word. The moment you try to clarify this term by providing it with traits then we get back to how do you know those traits exists and how do you know that these traits are the original uncaused cause and not some earlier event? So you explained away nothing.

    Thirdly, even if everything must have had a starting point and you called that starting point god, you still have not explained why this particular starting point is somehow exempt from the general rule you originally stated – that everything must have a cause – or how this could work?

    Fourthly, you have not explained why, even if there was an uncaused cause and we called this event god, why it would have to be sentient or intelligent or self-aware or conscious. How do you know or manage to reach a conclusion that this uncaused cause is (or must be) sentient? There is no link to suggest that even if there was a cause that you could know anything about the traits of this event so you are just using a loaded word to describe an unknown even but it would be equal to me using god to describe my teaspoon. Yea, the teaspoon exists – but why call it god? Why is this starting point not just a force of nature, a law of gravity, an unthinking spark that just reacts? Why does it HAVE to be a conscious sentient being or entity?

    And finally, fifthly, you do not explain how you know (or could know) any of this, except to allude to this is true because the bible says so and for that see point 1 again.

    1. While I think you could really do with learning some skills to help you with reading and understanding what you read, let me respond to some of your points.

      First, I began by quoting the Bible not because I simply assume the Bible to be true. Your point here is valid. If I were seeking to prove the existence of God merely by referring to the Bible then I would have the problem you point out. Namely, I would be using a book which assumes God’s existence to prove God’s existence.

      As it happens, I meant to do no such thing. My intention – perhaps not communicated well enough for you – was merely to state the Christian position and the Bible’s position. So I understand the point you are making but I would like to encourage you to read things more closely and make better decisions about which things someone (me in this case) is actually trying to state and argue for.

      Now, on to your point about the second part of my post. Here I think you fail miserably to understand the argument and so your response reveals your lack of understanding. Let me try again.

      I have reproduced what you said below and added my own comments in italics.

      Point 2) the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical start to finish. Here are 5 reasons for it:

      Firstly, why must there be an initial cause? Why can the universe not be just simply one long chain of events for eternity? Isn’t that exactly how you describe god to be, ‘an eternal series of thoughts, desires, and existence’ – i.e.: and eternal series of cause and effect (thought and reflection)? So, you have not explained why the universe can not be an infinite series of unstopped cause and effect.

      There are a few reasons why there must be a first cause. First, an infinite set of causes and effects is an impossibility because an infinite regress would remove the ‘now’ moment. Let me explain. This moment – whenever it is – was caused by the previous moment, which was caused by the moment before it and so on and so on. If there were an infinite number of moments prior to this one, when would we arrive at this moment? You could think about this by imagining a book. If you open the book to say, page 312 you would be on page 312. If you then turned one page at a time back towards the beginning of the book you would arrive at the beginning 311 pages later. If there were an infinite number of pages before page 312 and you tried to go backwards one page at a time, when would you arrive at the beginning? Never. So if we change images and think of moments in time as pages in our book, then the logic and the problem should become clear. If there were an infinite number of moments before this one then when would this moment be ‘turned up?’ Never. Second, science consistently says there was a beginning for the universe. All of the phenomena which can be observed point to a beginning. So what caused the beginning of the universe? The universe could not cause itself – this is nonsense. So logic demands something outside of the universe which caused the universe to begin.

      Secondly, even if you can logically show that an initial cause must exist, then why is god exempt? Why does a god NOT require an initial cause? You have not explained why, if there is a beginning, it must start with god and not at some earlier stage – except to say that it is defined this way, but the definition is just a word, a name – not an explanation. And an explanation must be illuminating. It must use simpler terms to clarify the concept else it is not an explanation and this term does not illuminate or clarify anything. It is just a term – a definition – a word. The moment you try to clarify this term by providing it with traits then we get back to how do you know those traits exists and how do you know that these traits are the original uncaused cause and not some earlier event? So you explained away nothing.

      To begin with, I found your explanation of the folly of my post not to be illuminating so perhaps your explanation is not a valid one. Beyond that, why is the Uncaused Cause exempt from being caused itself? Surely you can see this is so because of its definition. If the reasoning above is correct, which I think it is, then what follows logically is this Uncaused Cause must exist outside the universe, must not have a Cause and must be capable of Causing the universe. You are correct to say this is merely a definition. What is required is to think through the definition and look at the universe to see the effects which were brought about by the Uncaused Cause.

      Thirdly, even if everything must have had a starting point and you called that starting point god, you still have not explained why this particular starting point is somehow exempt from the general rule you originally stated – that everything must have a cause – or how this could work?

      Surely this is just a restatement of your previous problem? Maybe there is a slight difference but not a sufficient difference to require a separate explanation.

      Fourthly, you have not explained why, even if there was an uncaused cause and we called this event god, why it would have to be sentient or intelligent or self-aware or conscious. How do you know or manage to reach a conclusion that this uncaused cause is (or must be) sentient? There is no link to suggest that even if there was a cause that you could know anything about the traits of this event so you are just using a loaded word to describe an unknown even but it would be equal to me using god to describe my teaspoon. Yea, the teaspoon exists – but why call it god? Why is this starting point not just a force of nature, a law of gravity, an unthinking spark that just reacts? Why does it HAVE to be a conscious sentient being or entity?

      The reason this is so is because, logically, the effects must be present in the cause. A cause cannot bring about an effect which it does not possess. Think of mixing colours. If you mix blue and yellow you will get green. You will never get pink. You will never get any shade which requires red. Blue and yellow, as causes, cannot produce red. Red must be present in the ‘causing mixture’ to have any pinks, purples or other shades of red. Think of animals reproducing. The causing animals (parents) produce effects (children) which reflect their own nature. Perhaps evolutionists want us to think otherwise but this has not been adequately demonstrated. Two dogs bred together will always produce dogs. Even hybrids, when they are bred, produce animals which resemble their parents. A mule is the product of a horse and a donkey and resembles both of them. No matter how many times you try, a horse and a donkey will not produce a cat. So the effects must be present in the cause. So if the universe, as an effect, has in it personal beings (humans) then the cause must be a personal being. If the universe requires mass and energy to exist then the Cause must be capable of creating mass and energy where there is none. I could go on and list more examples but the reasoning is there for you. Any of the effects we observe in the universe (like sentience, intelligence, self-awareness and consciousness) must be present in the cause.

      And finally, fifthly, you do not explain how you know (or could know) any of this, except to allude to this is true because the bible says so and for that see point 1 again.

      I have written about the reasons why these things are not merely assumptions. These things are based upon logic and observation and not mere assumption.

  2. Dear Sir,

    there is bit of discussion about your text on FB. Here is my post:

    ‎”Christians assume that there is ‘God’. Atheists assume that there is no god.” Are these statements true?

    Believers take existence of their ‘God’ for granted. The ‘fact’ that ‘God’ exists is the foundation of their faith. This inner assurance of the existence of ‘God’ is formulated into various religious practices, represented by different churches. They often disagree on basic ideas like, what is the nature of ‘God’ and what is the relation between its three theological representations. They disagree on the basic , although imaginary, concept of salvation. They disagree on how much their Holy Scriptures and their religious leaders should influence their life. They agree on one concept really; the existence of ‘God’.

    Atheists do not assume existence of ‘God’. They understand that ‘god’ is an imaginary being created by believers and they see similar patterns and developments in all religions. They understand that because they can plausibly explain how religions came to life. Atheists, or I reckon most of them, critically look at the world and other peoples’ convictions, including religious convictions. They compare these convictions with their knowledge of the world and look for evidence. They are open to accept any evidence. Atheists take into account Christian testimony and weigh it against what they know about the observable and understandable for them world. And their conclusion is crystal clear; that ‘god’ is just a religious concept, an imaginary belief.

    ‎jcordray, the author of the original article, defies the logic since he builds his statements on a false assumption of the existence of ‘god’. Because he has got developed religious believes, he accepts his convictions to be only true. This assumption gives him an untrue interpretation of facts. Since, in his mind, his religion is the only true one, he doesn’t see patterns and relations with other religious believes.

    But for if religion might ever positively influence those human beings who believe in the concept of god, I say, keep your churches.”

    Donat Gniezdzinski (Donnie Maconie)

    1. Both of your statements which begin your third and fourth paragraphs are not necessarily true. You said: “Believers take existence of their ‘God’ for granted.” This is not a necessarily true statement. In fact, the article I wrote was a short summary of a line of reasoning which indicates the need for a First Cause for the existence of the universe. The necessary attributes of this First Cause are in harmony with the Christian understanding of God.

      To be quite clear, the areas of disagreement you cite are actually areas where the vast majority of Christians agree. Many, many Christians have similar or identical beliefs about the nature of God. The same is true for the concept of salvation within Christianity. Yes, Christians do disagree on some issues yet the disagreements, taken within Christianity as a whole are small.

      The exact opposite is true for atheists. There is no agreed definition of the nature of the universe among atheists. There is no agreed set of texts which can or should be consulted to help people learn about atheism or the universe. There is massive disagreement about the nature of evil, the problems within the world and any/all of the solutions which have been proposed for addressing these problems. There is no accepted ‘leadership’ of atheism and often one set of experts sharply disagree with another set of experts.

      Compared to the atheists, Christians are very agreeable and unified.

      You also said: “Atheists do not assume the existence of God.” At face value, this is a true statement yet its opposite is not true. Atheists do assume the NON-existence of God. Your very next statement reveals this to be true: “They understand that ‘god’ is an imaginary being…(emphasis mine)” How do they understand this? Unless their understanding can be first explained and then demonstrated the atheist is no less guilty of making assumptions.

      Atheists can put forward theories of how religions came to life yet these are merely theories. Rarely have I met atheists who genuinely consider all of the evidence and certainly atheists do not generally “take into account Christian testimony.”

      I challenge you to determine where I have built my beliefs on an assumption. Here is the reasoning I used. Show me the assumption.

      1.) Everything which begins to exist has a cause for its beginning.
      2.) The universe began to exist.
      3.) The universe has a cause for its beginning.

      This First Cause has a set of necessary attributes which we can recognise as being some of the characteristics of God.

      So, I repeat, show me my assumption.

  3. You have not commented on this part:

    “Atheists, or I reckon most of them, critically look at the world and other peoples’ convictions, including religious convictions. They compare these convictions with their knowledge of the world and look for evidence. They are open to accept any evidence. Atheists take into account Christian testimony and weigh it against what they know about the observable and understandable for them world. And their conclusion is crystal clear; that ‘god’ is just a religious concept, an imaginary belief.”

  4. Understanding that ‘god’ is an imaginary concept? Look around, there is no intelligence or will without bodily representation. Gods do not exists. Your God doesn’t exist. Spirits do not exist. Aha, there is no hell or heaven either.

    This part:
    “I challenge you to determine where I have built my beliefs on an assumption. Here is the reasoning I used. Show me the assumption.

    1.) Everything which begins to exist has a cause for its beginning.
    2.) The universe began to exist.
    3.) The universe has a cause for its beginning.”

    contains bus-loads of twisted logical thinking and I leave it to you to reconsider it for yourself, as I do not need to ‘win’ or ‘out-talk’ you.

    I do not need to believe in an imaginary being.

    You believe in non-existent creature, man-made idea.

    If you pray, your words just reassure you and that’s all what is happening.

    This part:

    “The exact opposite is true for atheists. There is no agreed definition of the nature of the universe among atheists. There is no agreed set of texts which can or should be consulted to help people learn about atheism or the universe. There is massive disagreement about the nature of evil, the problems within the world and any/all of the solutions which have been proposed for addressing these problems. There is no accepted ‘leadership’ of atheism and often one set of experts sharply disagree with another set of experts. ”

    I do not see a problem here. Nobody’s life depends on it and there are no imaginary awards or false promises. We all human beings can learn together and try to make sense of our life and what’s happening every day.

    You say, God exists since there must be a good reason and start for the world to come into existence.

    This is very twisted logic.

    How about; there is no spiritual beings whatsoever, and if there is a reason for existence or common goal or cause or reason, then we do not know it yet.

    And how about this; as far as we know life happened for no reason apparent and adding sense and making sense from our lives will take us time pretty till we die.

    Look, body, we all will die one day and it will happen to you and me. And when your heart and brain stop working, after a couple of minutes we will be dead.

    And we’ll stay dead.

    Let’s live to our best.

    Have a pleasant evening!

    ***

    Since we’ve spoken so much, let me introduce myself properly since I am using a FB alias;
    my name is Donat Gniezdzinski. I am Polish and I live in London.

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: