Many skeptics ask this question. But the fact is that, by definition, God is not a created Creator of the universe, who exists forever. Therefore, the question "Who created God?" is just illogical. This is the same as asking, 'Who is the bachelor married to?' But a more experienced interlocutor might ask, “If a cause is needed for the universe to emerge, why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a reason, why does the universe need it? " In answering this question, Christians should use the following logic:
- Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
- The universe has a beginning.
- Hence the universe has a cause.
It is very important to emphasize the words that are in bold. The universe needs a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown later in this article. Unlike the universe, God had no beginning and therefore does not need a reason. Moreover, Einstein's law of general relativity shows that time is associated with matter and space. Therefore, time itself began with matter and space. Since God is the creator of the entire universe, He is also the creator of time. Therefore, He is not limited by the dimension of time that He created, and therefore has no beginning in time - God is 'High and Exalted, Living Eternally' (Isaiah 57:15). It follows that He has no cause. No one created God - He existed forever.
Conversely, there is solid evidence that the universe had a beginning. This is evidenced by the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of physics.
1st Law: The total amount of mass / energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available to do the work decreases, or the entropy increases to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass / energy is limited, and the amount of energy available for work decreases, then, therefore, the universe could not exist forever. Otherwise, it would have already used up all the usable energy, resulting in the 'heat death' of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would decay, every part of the universe would have the same temperature, and no further work could take place. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe appeared a certain time ago with a large supply of energy available for work, and now this energy is spent, and the universe is being depleted.
But what if our skeptical interlocutor agrees that the universe has a beginning, but disagrees that it needs a reason? It goes without saying that things that have a beginning also have a cause - no one really would deny that. Denying the law of cause and effect would destroy all science and history. Moreover, the universe cannot be self-replicating - nothing can create itself, as this would mean that it existed even before it appeared, which is actually a logical absurdity.
Summary:
Promotional video:
- There is evidence that the universe (including time itself) had a beginning.
- It is completely nonsensical and unreasonable to believe that anything could begin to exist without a reason.
- This implies that the universe needs a cause, as stated in Genesis 1: 1 and Romans 1:20.
- God, as the creator of time, is timeless. Since He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, and therefore He does not need a reason. Nobody created God!
Objections
There are only two ways to refute this argument:
a. Show that the argument is logically invalid.
b. Show that at least one of the premises is false.
a) Is this argument invalid?
A valid argument is an argument for which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Since the argument in this article is correct, the skeptic's only hope is to challenge one or both premises.
b) Are the premises true?
1) Does the universe have a beginning?
The ideas of an ever-oscillating universe were popularized by atheists such as Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov to avoid the notion of a universe beginning that clearly points to a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undoubtedly refute their ideas. Even an oscillating universe cannot get around these laws. Each of the hypothetical cycles of contraction and expansion would consume more and more of the energy available to operate. This means that the multi-cyclical model of the emergence of the universe can only have a limited past, which means it had a beginning!
Also, there is ample evidence that the mass is too small for gravity to stop the expansion of the universe and allow cyclicity, i.e. the universe is "open". According to the best estimates, the universe has only half the mass required for a 'big compression'.
Finally, none of the known mechanisms would have led to a rebound after the hypothesized 'big squeeze' occurred. In the real world of physics, these models start with the Big Bang, followed by expansion, and then the end.
2) Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists claim that quantum mechanics violates the principle of cause and effect and can create something out of nothing. For example, Paul Davis writes:
"… space and time could arise from nothing, as a result of a quantum transition … Elementary particles can arise from nowhere without much causality … After all, the world of quantum mechanics is constantly producing something from nothing."
But this is a completely misapplication of quantum mechanics, which never produces anything out of nothing. Davis himself admitted on a previous page that his script "should not be taken too seriously."
Theories that the universe is a quantum wobble must assume that there was something that could "wobble." Vacuum is not "nothing", but it has energy and a combination of the potential of matter and antimatter.
Moreover, if there is no reason, then there is no explanation as to why this particular universe appeared at a certain time, and why it was the universe, and not say, for example, a banana or a cat. This universe cannot have any properties that can explain its appearance, because it would not have any properties at all until it actually began to exist.
Is creation by God a rational attitude?
The last desperate tactic of skeptics in trying to get around the theistic conclusion about the origin of the universe is to assert that creation is an inconsistent position. Davis correctly notes that since time itself began with the existence of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about what was 'before' the universe began to exist. He also argues that causes must precede effects. But if nothing happened 'before' the universe appeared, then (according to Davis) it is completely pointless to discuss the cause of the universe.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a helpful critique of Davis, pointed out that Davis is very weak in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long debated the concept of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) uses an example in which something heavy is on something soft (it could be a weight on a featherbed), and this heavy (weight) simultaneously forms a depression in the soft (featherbed). Craig says: The first moment in time was the moment of God's creative action and the simultaneous appearance of creation.
By Jonathan Sarfati