Who created God? (Complete series)

BQ: If God created the universe, who created God? (I: Contingent entity.)

A question we'll be exploring is, "If God created the universe, who created God?" First, some prep work. 

The law of causality is one of the most basic laws in all of science. Every effect must have a cause, and the cause must be antecedent and superior to the effect. That is, the cause must be adequate to explain the effect. For example, imagine that you come across a car, and by one tire of the car is a mound of worker ants. You will not assume that the worker ants made the car, as they are not an ADEQUATE cause.

Some entities are contingent and cannot account for their own existence. Mount Rushmore, for example, is made of natural material, but it did not pop into existence, nor is erosion an adequate cause to explain it. Mount Rushmore, we can say, relies on outside forces to adequately explain its existence.

The universe, we know, will have an end. It is not infinite.* Because of that, we know it had a beginning (first proved scientifically in the early 1900s).* It is also a contingent entity,* so there are three possible explanations for its existence, as follows: it is eternal and has always existed (proven to be false), it is not eternal and created itself out of nothing,* or it is not eternal, and was created by an adequate cause. 

More tomorrow.  

*=for future serial BQs. 


 

BQ: If God created the universe, who created God? (II: Absolute reality.)

We are exploring the thought of, "If God created the universe, who created God?" We learned yesterday that the universe has a beginning and will have an end, and it is not able to account for itself, thus making it a contingent entity. 

Since the universe relies upon something else to explain its existence, we must ask, "what caused the universe?" Stephen Hawking wrote that, "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," and, "the universe can and will create itself out of nothing." We'll delve quite deeply into some fundamental errors that Hawking makes in the future, but for now let's shed some reason on Hawking's statements. GK Chesterton aptly wrote, "“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

So what caused this universe?  We can logically and scientifically reason out a few key points using the law of causality, among others. The entity which created the universe is something that:

(a) existed before or outside it, 

(b) is superior to it [the creator must be greater than the created];

(c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent entity (universe) cannot explain itself. 

From this, we can also reason that, had there been a time when nothing existed, nothing would also exist now. We'll explore the logical conclusions of that tomorrow. 

BQ: If God created the universe, who created God? (III: Something's eternal.)

In connection with the last post, we have to reason that, had there been a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist now. Sproul made an astute observation noting that if nothing always produces nothing then, "reason demands that if something exists... the something must be self-existent...there must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist."  Keep in mind, however, that we know that one entity (our universe) is a contingent entity and has not always existed, so an outside, absolute entity must be the cause for its existence.

To demonstrate this logically, everything that humans know to exist can be classified as either matter (including energy and quantum-level entities) or mind; there is not a third alternative. Using what we know so far, we can reason that:

1.  Everything that exists is either mind or matter.
2.  Something eternal exists, since something exists now.
3.  Therefore either mind or matter is eternal.

• 3b.) Matter is not eternal, as we have proven;
• 3c.) Thus mind is eternal.

Nothing can never produce something, so if something exists now, something must have always existed. Yet we know that the universe had a beginning and will have an end, so the "what" which has always existed is something we will learn more about as we consider the question, "If God created the universe, what created God?" Tomorrow, we need to return to this topic for a brief look at famed atheist and physicist Stephen Hawking's work in this area.

BQ: If God created the universe, who created God? (IV: Hawking's regression.)

BQ: What if we could show that nothing can produce something? In this regard, we're going to look at some writings by Stephen Hawking, who says that science has removed a need for God.

Hawking concludes, "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing." We must subject Hawking's statement to logical analysis to decide if it is valid. First, what is "nothing" that Hawking mentions? Notice that Hawking says, "Because there is a law of gravity..." Hawking assumes, then, that gravity exists, yet gravity is not "nothing," as Hawking claims. "Nothing" is total non-being. 

Hawking, then, is simultaneously proclaiming that the universe was created from nothing and from something. Another way of viewing this is, "because X, Y is created," but that presupposes the existence of X in the first place. But wait, what, then, created X? And what created the thing that created X? Ah-ha, a loop of infinite regression!

Hawking creates some more, horrible logical errors with his conclusion. He says the the universe comes from nothing that turns out to actually be something and then he says that the universe creates itself. If the universe is "Y," then he is saying "Y will create Y." That presupposes the existence of the universe to account for its own existence! 

But wait, Hawking is ALSO saying that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe, which is yet another contradiction, as a law of nature's own existence depends of the prior existence of the nature it describes!  Hawking's entire conclusion is, at it turns out, three self-contradictions in one sentence, and is merely further proof that nothing will never produce something.

 

 

BQ:...who created God? (V: Contingent vs absolute)

BQ: We saw with Hawking's argument that he reached a loop of infinite regression, among other errors, in explaining the existence of the universe. If gravity created the universe, what created gravity? If there are infinite universes, what created them? What created the thing that created them? This same "problem" is also ascribed to God with the question, "If God created the universe, who created God?"

There is a heuristic error latent in that question, though! To explain it in terms somewhat easier to understand, imagine that you are a hamster in a locked cage. You did not simply appear in the cage; your existence is contingent upon an outside entity placing you there. As a hamster, you know that you must press a button to get a pellet of food. This is your reality. It is all you know. It is how your world always has worked and always will work. You reason that whoever put you there must also have to press a button to get food, because that is the way things work! But is that true?

Now apply this to the absolute reality that we will identify as the creator of the universe. You think, "I was created and had a beginning, everything I know has been created and had a beginning, so this creator, too must have been made and had a beginning." The error is the same as the hamster's; it applies the constraints of the created to the creator. Such is always doomed to failure and infinite regression and is inherently illogical. Imagine that you are a goldfish in a round goldfish bowl. You look through your bowl and think, "The universe is curved and magnified." However, that is only true for you; it cannot logically be applied to the outside reality.

BQ:...who created God? (VI: Logical for a long time.)

BQ: We learned that infinite regression loops occur when a contingent entity tries to ascribe the laws which govern it (a hamster only getting food by pressing a button assumes that such is true outside the cage) to the absolute entity which created it (the human that put it in a locked cage does not need to press a button; he is not bound by those laws). 

Throughout history, much of polytheism has attributed laws of nature to various gods. There were gods of thunder, gods or fire, gods of rain, etc. These gods were, in fact, ruled by natural laws. Zeus, for example, had to be BORN by Cronus and Rhea. As Philoponus, Xenophanes, and Aquinas noted, these were really nothing more than humans given powers to control certain aspects of nature, as many natural laws ruled them. They were, then, gods of nature. All three reasoned that the universe must have been created, but by an entity outside of, unlike, and not governed by nature. If it were governed by nature, it would have been unable to create the universe, as the creator must be greater than the created. 

Today, we can easily see the logic of that in various cosmological arguments, notably the Kalām and contingency cosmological arguments, which follow in this pattern:

1.  All contingent realities depend for their existence upon a non-contingent or necessary reality.
2.  The universe is a contingent reality.
3.  Therefore, the universe depends for its existence on a non-contingent or necessary reality.

Tomorrow, we'll wrap this up.

BQ:...who created God? (Conclusion)

BQ: We ask the question, "If God created the universe, what created God," yet we've shown that the nature of reality must by necessity be different for the creator of the universe. While it seems at first strange to us, the Hebrew God Logos has from ancient times been unlike the polytheistic "gods of nature," instead being a "God outside nature," having created it and its laws. Unlike Zeus and others, who are ascribed parents, God describes Himself as a necessary being with the attribute of self-existence.

Indeed, a creator who creates a rule (that all things must be created and have a beginning) for a certain entity does not need to be governed by that rule Himself, just as, though we require our hamster in his cage to press a button for food, we need not press a button ourselves.

As Paul noted,  "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;  nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things." (Acts 17:24-25) God describes Himself as having the property of aseity/self-existence, as He is eternal, unlike so many of the gods men have made up. He is described as being outside of nature and utterly independent. 

The Creator of the universe (contingent reality) is the absolute reality necessary for the universe to exist.  We know that, in order for something to exist, something must have always existed, and unlike other gods, that is what God says He is—eternal and absolute; in a totally different category than man. From a very early time, God explained that the universe is aging, that it had a beginning, and that it was contingent. Using logic and science, we're able to clearly see that today, and unlike Stephen Hawking, we won't end up in an infinite causal-regression loop. Praise God! ;)