Who Made God?

Written by Scott Pruett

As a young boy, this is the first of many philosophical questions I remember asking my unfortunate mother. It is a natural question, given that everything in our experience has a cause and comes from something prior to itself. So, why not God? It is not just a question raised by metaphysically precocious youths, it was one of the most prominent objections offered by famed atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970){1}, and more recently Michael Shermer, of Skeptic magazine, raised this very challenge in public debate with Christian philosopher Doug Geivett{2}.

The answer to this question turns out to be fairly simple, though it requires some groundwork to first be laid. Shermer would like to call the following answer "philosophical mumbo-jumbo," but I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Something must be eternal

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is basically intended to demonstrate that the universe requires an explanation – a cause – and that cause must be a transcendent being, like God. To this, the atheist will often respond, "Well, if the universe needs a cause, why doesn't God need one too?"

The problem is that something has to be eternal and self-existing or we would never be here to wonder about it. If there were ever a time when there was nothing, then there would be nothing still. This is because nothing comes from nothing; "nothing" cannot be a cause for, or originator of, "something." There is nothing in our reason, experience, or intuition that would compel us to believe otherwise{3}, except, perhaps, to avoid a theistic conclusion regarding the origin of the universe. Since it is infinitely more rational to believe in an eternal cause for the universe, then we have but to decide which option is the more justified: an infinite universe or a self-existing creator of that universe.

At this point we can reply to the skeptic, "If you can accept an eternal universe, what problem do you have with the idea that a God could be eternal as well?" You see, atheists are perfectly willing to accept an eternal universe – indeed, it is preferable to them{4}. There is really no principled objection to something being eternal. The problem is that theists are insisting that the natural world is not – cannot – be eternal, and so we invite the countercharge by atheists. But the claim that nature is finite is not made simply because the Bible says that God "created" (though for someone committed to the authority of Scripture, it is enough), the claim is based upon reasonable conclusions about the nature of the creation itself.

The universe is finite

Here we cross paths again with the Cosmological Argument, which is used to highlight the finite nature of our universe. It does so (in its modern form) by way of a two pronged approach: philosophy and science. Lest I be accused of misnaming my article, let me only briefly touch on these here.

Prior to our modern scientific knowledge about the nature of our universe, one of the arguments against its being eternal was the problem of infinity. If the universe has eternally existed, then an infinite amount of time and preceding events have passed. Whether we break this up into seconds, hours, days, or millennia, an infinite number of these must have occurred. This is like saying that we have counted backward from infinity to get right to this very moment. If one can never begin counting to infinity and finish, then how can one do any better counting backward from infinity? It is like trying to climb out of an infinitely deep hole: you would be always climbing and never arriving.

Michael Shermer says he has no problem with the idea of infinity and simply dismisses the issue out-of-hand. But it is easy to say that something is possible, or that you believe in it; it is another thing to demonstrate that an idea is reasonable. For example, what if I said that I believe in square circles and for you not to believe in them simply demonstrates your lack of imagination? I think you could be forgiven for thinking me unbalanced and presumptuous.

"Infinity" is a mathematical concept that may be amusing to think about, but it is not something we can find an example of in this physical world, and it is a problematic idea at its very core{5}. Infinity, if anything, turns out to be "philosophical mumbo-jumbo."

The other angle of attack in demonstrating the finite nature of the universe is made easy for us by modern science. Over the course of the 20th Century the evidence for a specific point-of-origin accumulated to the point where astronomers and physicists are now almost unanimously agreed upon one theory. This origin event has been nicknamed the "Big Bang," and it is said to consist of a hot, explosive beginning of all of space, time, and matter. That's right, the mathematics that accompany this theory say that even "time" had its genesis at the Big Bang. That's a real stumper for naturalism!

For those skittish about this theory, just remember that the Big Bang is only a description of an effect, not a cause. Effects still need explanations, and this "effect" – the beginning of everything – is stunningly hospitable to theism!{6} Even if it were a wrong description of the creation events and timetables, Big Bang cosmology is a tough pill that atheism is compelled to swallow. Any possible discussion of a "natural" cause, or what "could have been" prior to the Big Bang, is mere conjecture{7} and lies beyond the reach of scientific tools and experience. The only thing we have empirical evidence of is that there was a beginning, and this leaves wide open one other candidate for eternal precursor and cause for the universe.

God fits the job description

So, since we know that we require a first cause, and the universe itself exhibits signs of being an effect, what would be the job description of such a cause?

• It must pre-exist this universe and be beyond and outside of it.
• It must stand outside of time as we know it in this four dimensional realm.
• It must be "eternal" in some sense of the word.
• It must be awesomely powerful.
• Additionally, there is an old axiom that says an effect cannot be greater than its cause, and judging by the "effect" of our universe, the cause must be creative (since the creation is elegant), intelligent (since it exhibits complex design), and personal (since it contains "persons").

This description looks conspicuously like God – the Christian God in particular{8}. Is it mere coincidence that the Scriptures, written in a pre-scientific age, describe God in just the way he ought to be to satisfy the requirements for creator of the universe we discover ourselves to inhabit? Passages such as Ge 1:1; Ex 3:14; Ps 90:2, 102:25-27, 147:5; Jn 5:26, 17:5; Ac 17:25; Ro 11:36; 1Tim 6:16; Heb 1:10-12; Tit 1:2; 1Pe 1:20; and Re 1:8 help to explain why Christianity has historically seen God to be timeless, transcendent, eternal, powerful, all-knowing, and the creator of the universe out of nothing. God is a prime candidate for eternal cause and creator of the universe by logical necessity and by (self) description.

Now, we have one last issue to clear up. How is it that it makes sense for God to be "eternal" in light of the problem of infinity that I have previously raised? It is because the universe is temporal, but God is not. God transcends this space-time dimension – He created it – and so He is not subject to the same problems of infinity discussed above. That is to say, He does not exist in the stream of time, as we know it, that must have marched on infinitely before the appearance of mankind. So, in what way is God eternal? God just IS; He is pure Being and self-existence (the latter is what theologians call "aseity"). It is no flippant response or cryptic moniker when God tells Moses that His name is "I AM."

The short answer

God is not the kind of thing that requires a cause. He did not come into existence – He is not an "effect," like the bursting forth of our universe, which needs to be explained. Since something must have existed eternally, or nothing would ever have come into being, we must look to a source that meets the job description of "creator." God is by very definition and necessity a self-existent, transcendent, and eternal Being. He stands outside of time and space and any of the known physical laws that would otherwise be a problem for such a concept. The nature of God's aseity may be difficult to fathom, but it is certainly not logically incoherent.

References

1. "I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
   Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian," Haldeman-Julius Publications, Girard, Kansas, 1929
2. "Belief in God Is More Reasonable Than Unbelief – A Debate between Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. Doug Geivett," First Baptist Church, Downey, CA, March 3, 2003
   Taped recordings of this debate are available at www.STR.org 
3. In recent decades quantum physics has become the savior of the something-from-nothing philosophy. Let me offer this insightful quote in response to this idea, which suggests that "nothing" is not the most accurate description of what the universe is being said to spring from.
   "This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence – a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What 'tells' the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time."
   Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 347
4. "Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang . . . the expanding Universe is preposterous . . . it leaves me cold."
   Sir Arthur Eddington, Nature (Vol. 127, 1931, p. 450)
   "[An infinitely old universe would] relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past."
   Dicke, Robert, Peebles, P. J. E., Roll, P. G., and Wilkinson, D. T. "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation," in Astrophysical Journal 142. (1965), p. 415
5. Consider the following. Let's say I had an infinite number of bags of M&M's. If there were 100 M&M's in each bag, how many total M&M's do I have? Infinity! Let's say I added one more bag to my stash of infinity. Would this make the number bigger? No, it's still infinity! What if an infinite number of people ate half the M&M's out of each bag – how many then? Still infinity! Let's say I threw away a trillion bags and then tried to share my M&M's with an infinite number of friends, would there be enough bags to go around? Yes!
6. "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing."
   George Smoot, Wrinkles in Time, (New York: William Morrow & Co, 1993)
7. "A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second - that is, some very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy."
   Leon Lederman (Nobel Prize winner in physics), The God Particle
8. The problem with gods from the various other religions is that they often exist within the universe we are attempting to explain. For instance, many Eastern and New Age religions have god being congruent with nature itself, and the gods of pagan religions are just additional residents of the natural world.

© 2008 LifeWay Christian Resources

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article