Question 4 – Who created God?

We have come to the question which sceptics use as a main argument for ridiculing believers and the existence of God. As the case may be, many unbelievers ask this question with the goal of avoiding the responsibility of looking for God, or thinking about Him. I believe, of course, that there are people who are truly interested in this question and may even be troubled by it. Unfortunately, very few believers know how to react to it adequately. This is logical. It is not possible to answer it in a few sentences because it concerns a logical trap in which the main reasoning fact is: if we cannot imagine something, then it is nonsense and it cannot exist. Yes, this question is interesting, complicated and the answer to it is difficult to conceive. I do not think, however, that in and of itself it stands as an argument against God's existence. 

One of the most well-known defenders and popularisers of atheism, professor Richard Dawkins, uses a similar argument in his book, The God Delusion. One of the main thoughts in this book can be expressed as follows:

"If you contend/claim that God created the universe, then logically you must ask who created God – who created the Creator. Then you must ask unendingly who created the creator, his creator, his creator and his creator etc. The idea that God can't exist emerges from this." [2]

Oxford professor of mathematics and philosopher John Lennox, one of the most well-known defenders of Christianity (he has encountered the greatest deniers of faith in God, including Dawkins, in public debates) has reacted to this argument and says that Dawkins falls in his own argument by the criticism he uses against Christianity in this way:

"Now, it could be that Richard Dawkins has difficulty with the notion of the uncreated. Although, and I'd like to know the answer to this, I don't know the answer to this - Does he believe that matter and energy have existed forever? Because if he does as many people do who are atheists, then they do believe in something eternal. So the problem must be that they can believe in something eternal but they don't believe in an eternal person, an eternal God. But where is the logical difficulty if you admit that something eternal exists then postulating that an eternal person exists? On the other hand, if they believe that matter and energy are finite, we can ask them their own question, 'Who created that? And who created whatever created that?' and so on."

So what is the answer? Who created God?

The Bible indicates that God is eternal and does not have a beginning or an end. He is, therefore, uncreated. Nevertheless, this book is about answers. I'll try then to develop an outline of possible ways to consider how to defend it.

Time and matter

God does not have a beginning. He never began; He never finished = He exists eternally.

Let's realise as humans we are locked in time and space. It is logical for us. Things begin, they are, they will be and one day they will cease/finish. We do not know anything else, so that is how we consider/think. But what if time is created in just the same way as matter is? What if God created matter (the universe, planets, people…) and time as well? Time denotes concepts such as 'beginning' and 'ending' with meaning. Although it is unimaginable for us, God is not bound by time but on the contrary He lives outside of it.

Ticklish socialism

Unless God was created, the question then, can not relate to Him. To ask therefore, 'Who created God?' is like asking why a ball does not have corners or why water is not dry.

Jíří Lem expressed it this way in his blog:

"Do you know how ticklish socialism is? Or how bold zinc is? Why do these questions not make sense? Concepts found in these questions have nothing to do with the characteristics that are ascribed to these things. Zinc ccanot be bold even if it wanted to be a hundred times over. All the same in the end, it is unable to want to be." [4]

What is it actually about? We are trying to assign characteristics and conditions that apply to us alone, our experience and conditions – what we live in. We have a compulsion to put God into the box of our imagination. If He is not there, we are nervous and uncertain. It is normal for us. However, as soon as we want to elevate our experience above all else and assert that 'nothing else is possible', then we are going to be like people who have lived their whole lives in an isolated tribe at the ends of the earth and assert that mobile phones do not exist because they do not know the principle of signals being carried through the air and they cannot imagine such a thing. This is simply because it is not a part of the world in which they live.

Let us also say that most of the eminent philosophers do not support the idea that everything must have a cause. Everything that begins to exist does have its cause. Of course if God did not start to exist, He cannot have had a primary source.

Atheists and an eternal universe

As a point of interest, the reality is that atheists themselves had for a long time supported the opinion that the universe was eternal and began without a cause. [5]

The universe and its beginning

The reason for the existence of God arises from the existence of the universe itself. Today we can safely say that the universe had a beginning in time and in that case couldn't have existed forever. Since it is valid to say that nothing (that has a cause) can exist from nothing, it must also be valid to say that there is something or someone here independent of the thing that created it. If the universe began with the Big Bang, what was before it? None of the atheists are able to give a reliable answer to this question. If the evidence had shown that the universe was eternal, theoretically it would not have had to have had an eternal cause. However, the proof shows that it does have a beginning. To consider then that there is a created universe and an uncreated cause (God) is rational and well-founded.

Sceptics may think that believers must run to a foolish/ridiculous faith in this, that God is eternal and has no beginning. However, they do not perceive that they themselves must believe in an unsubstantiated supposition that everything that exists originated from nothing (more specifically, from nothing or from an unspecified point).

Even the atheist professor Kai Nielsen declared the following concerning this topic:

"Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that. In fact, you would find my reply quite unintelligible." [5]

Why then do atheists accept a foggy, unclear and in substance an unimaginable theory that everything somehow just began? - from nothing?

The person who denies the existence of God must believe (whether or not he/she is aware of it) that all that is perfect, that which we observe today began in a way not fully known to us from nothing and for no reason at all. Order arose from chaos. Infinitely intricate systems began without any intelligence. Does this concept/supposition, this faith seem superior to you?

I believe that faith in an eternal God is in no way inferior in comparison with a traditional scientific supposition. On the contrary it has clear logic, makes good sense and in the context of many other indices appears to be something very plausible.

While defending this viewpoint, I have restricted myself to a very narrow area of the argument. I have not mentioned many of the supporting proofs and arguments for the existence of God that are not at all connected directly to this question. These proofs will be dealt with in other places/questions.

In conclusion, I want to say that this question does not have and unequivocal and clearly defined answer. To be honest, it is quite difficult to answer. Nevertheless, if this fact were the reason for someone to reject the existence of God, he would also be 'cutting off his nose to spite his face' because atheism ( the Theory of Evolution) contains far more uncertainties and problems. What is more, both sides must ask the exact same question, 'What was eternal?' It is not true, therefore that unbelievers would be at an advantage and had a clear answer. People supporting both side of these contradictory poles must decide which one they will believe – eternal material and chance, or an eternal God. What is the most logical and which one has more proof I leave to you to consider.

Summation

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning." - C.S. Lewis