Who created God?
It’s an illogical question
This question is a major objection that atheists put forward to justify their disbelief. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), a famous British philosopher, in his influential little essay, Why I am not a Christian, put this forward as his first objection.1 Today’s atheists repeat the objection, including Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Australia’s own Philip Adams at the 2010 Global Atheists’ Congress in Melbourne Australia, who said,
“The great argument for God was that there had to be a Creation, a beginning. … But my objection was simple. If God was the beginning who began God?”2
The universe had a beginning; almost no one disputes that, because the laws of thermodynamics demand it: the universe is running down and it cannot have been running down forever, or it would have already run down. No stars would be still churning out energy and we would not be here.
Some have proposed one universe giving birth to another, but again, there cannot be an infinite series of such births and deaths, as each cycle must have less energy available than the last and if this had been happening for eternity, the death of everything would have already happened.
There must have been a beginning
One of the most established principles of logic / science / reality is the principle of causality: something that has a beginning has a sufficient cause. The principle is not, ‘Everything has a cause’; Bertrand Russell misstated it. No, the principle is, ‘Everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause’. Just a moment’s thought confirms this—something which had no beginning has no need of a cause. Furthermore, a cause has to be sufficient, or adequate. ‘You were found in a cabbage patch’ is not a sufficient explanation for your existence.
This principle of causation is so fundamental that if I said that the chair you are sitting on, which must have had a beginning, just popped into existence without any cause, you might justifiably think I need a psychiatric assessment!
Today’s atheists, who like to use words like ‘rational’, ‘reasonable’ and ‘scientific’ in describing their beliefs, believe that the greatest beginning of all—that of the universe—had no cause whatsoever! Some admit it is a problem, but they claim that saying ‘God did it’ explains nothing because you then have to explain where God came from. But is this a valid objection?
What must the cause of the universe have been like?
The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit.
Furthermore, the cause of the universe had to be incredibly powerful; the sheer size and energy seen in the universe together speak of that power; there had to be a sufficient cause.
That sounds like the God of the Bible to me. The Bible reveals the Creator of the universe as:
- eternal
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2)
- all-powerful
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all. (1 Chronicles 29:11–12)
- spirit (non-material)
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)
Note that the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Here God created time itself. Only One who is outside of time, that is, timeless, or eternal, could do this.
Now to ask where someone who is eternal, someone who had no beginning, came from (‘Who created God?’) is like asking, ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’ It is an irrational question.
The Bible matches reality, which is not surprising when we consider that it claims to be from the Creator Himself.
Two ‘great beginnings’—without any cause!
Those who reject the Creator not only have to believe that matter came into being without any cause; they also have to believe that life itself popped into existence without an adequate cause.
Even the simplest single-celled life is stupendously complex. A humble bacterium is full of incredibly sophisticated nano-machines that it needs to live.3 A cell needs a minimum of over 400 different proteins to make the machines that are absolutely essential for life.4 How could these protein-based machines make themselves, even if all the right ingredients (20 different amino acids, but many of each) could make themselves? The amino acids, often thousands of them, have to be joined together in the correct order for each protein to function.
Just think about one essential machine that copies the DNA instructions for making each protein.5 Then let’s take just one protein component of that machine, less than 10% of the total. This protein is 329 amino acids in length. What would be the chance of getting this one protein by chance, assuming that the correct, and only the correct, amino acid ingredients were present? Calculate it this way: 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 … 329 times!6 This is a probability of 1 in 10428 … a number with 428 zeros after the 1! Even if every atom in the universe (1080—a number with 80 zeros) represented an experiment for every molecular vibration possible (1012 per second) for the supposed evolutionary age of the universe (14 billion years=1018 seconds), this would allow ‘only’ 10110 experiments—a long, long way short of the number needed to have a ghost of a chance of getting just this one protein to form,7 let alone the over 400 others needed.
It’s no wonder that Richard Dawkins admits that scientists might never work out how life could arise by natural processes. Nevertheless, he rejects the creation explanation for the fallacious reason above.
Now what sort of cause is sufficient to explain the origin of life? The cause must be incredibly intelligent—far beyond our intelligence. We marvel at the scientists who are discovering the nano-technology in living things—and it is an astonishing enterprise. But what of the One who invented these things? How much more intelligent is He? This reminds me of another characteristic of the God whom the Bible reveals: He is omniscient (all knowing). See Psalm 139:2–6; Isaiah 40:13–14.
We know sufficient about the Creator from His creation to be “without excuse”. Romans 1:18–22 says,
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools … ”
And here the Bible explains why otherwise intelligent people choose to believe impossible things—that firstly the universe, then life, just popped into existence without any adequate cause. They choose to illogically accept that their two ‘great beginnings’ had no sufficient cause, rather than acknowledge and honour their Creator.
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Media
References and notes
- Bertrand Russell is respected for his skill in logic and philosophy, especially as applied to mathematics, but this rant against God is not at all logical. Return to text.
- Adams, P., The atheist delusion (an edited version of a speech Phillip Adams gave at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention); abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/19/2850137.htm. Return to text.
- Smith, C., Fantastic voyage: Can the theory of evolution stand the test of modern science?, Creation 30(1):20–23, 2007; creation.com/fantastic-voyage. Return to text.
- This is the minimum required for self-reproducing life, which is necessary before evolution can even theoretically get started. See Sarfati, J., How simple can life be? 14 February 2006. Return to text.
- RNA polymerase; see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/Lectures/Topics/RNAP_bacterial.html. Return to text.
- There is a little flexibility in the order, so it could be a little less than 329, but not much less, and I have chosen only 10% of one molecular machine to illustrate the point. For a detailed study of how much flexibility there is in the amino acid order for a functional protein see: Truman, R., The ubiquitin protein: chance or design? Journal of Creation 19(3):116–127, 2005; creation.com/ubiquitin. Return to text.
- Even if the universe were 10 times bigger and 10 times older, this only makes it 10112 experiments. No matter how you jiggle the numbers, the number of possible experiments comes up way short. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
I would like to respond to the comment you made to, Jason D., United States, 7 November 2012.
You are spot on as you down under folks would say. You said Jason was obviously being taught to parrot and not how to think. It is tragic but I have observed this shift in our American education system for some time. I'm 60 years now and I attended school before this shift really took hold but looking back I can now see it. This would explain why we in Milwaukee, WI in the 60's and 70's didn't need to lock our doors at night and often keys were left in the ignition with no problems, (just an observation). You would never do this nowadays with the anti-God mentality in our nation!
We are being taught what to think and not how to think. Kids are tested on how well they have memorized a particular text, (can't use the bible) but not on how well they understand the subject which is why you get negative responses from guys like Jason. You are challenging his brainwashing, (world view) and it scares him.
What better way to control a society but by brainwashing!
Satan knows this all to well!
Take the truth to them in peace and love.
It is no wonder that god refers to us as "little children". It is because of our lack of understanding and Atheists are like little rebellious children refusing to learn and grow up, (spiritually speaking.) It is only when we understand the problem with the world, (sin) we can then begin to take responsibility for the fallen state of this world. Then we will begin to grow up spiritually. It's not just the way it is, (as the song says) or God's fault! It's our fault and ours only! We don't want to listen and obey, (Psalm 14).
I have known some very old children in my time, my mother being one. Everything was everyone else's fault. Never a shred of self responsibility and it is something seriously missing in this country and this world. Most of the problems in my life were of my own making and the others are because of this world system, (humanity's making).
"Who created God"? We can't even understand our own physical realm, so how can one begin to explain the spiritual realm, (existence of God) without special revelation?
It is a ploy! A defence mechanism! To falsely justify the denial of Gods existence. But it won't fly, (aviation jargon) at the great white thrown judgment!
Let's preach the gospel boldly, so that by the spirit some may escape the eternal fire as we have. God Bless!
The answer that I have given is that God (Yahweh) of the Bible is the only God that's description is adequate to be the God of creation. For many of the same reasons that you brought up. God would have to be eternal, most ancient gods were immortal, but not eternal. God would have to be all-powerful. Again ancient false gods usually had weaknesses or could lose battles with other gods. God had to exist outside of creation, which he does, he's described as a non-material Spirit. Other ancient gods seem to have mostly physical characteristics and do not transcend the material creation.
Then I say something like this. Don't you find it the least bit unbelievable that the Hebrews could have made up the perfect God? Why didn't Yahweh mirror other gods of the time if they stole ideas from Egypt or if they had just made him up how did they know he would need to have those attributes? In other words, it would be very hard to "make up" the God of the Bible.
God's eternal nature is the hardest point to just make up. People generally do not think in terms of eternity about anything. Except of course that God has put "eternity" in our hearts. How did ancient people fathom an eternal God when they had never seen an example of anything eternal?
Also, quantum fluctuations are not without cause; there have to be subatomic particles or wave energy for such to occur. They don't 'just happen'. The fluctuations will occur. Again lack of precise timing predictions does not mean there is no cause.
A video on YouTube? Another wonderfully authoritative source of (mis)information? The second law of thermodynamics is no illusion. It is probably the most established principle of physics and no experiment has ever violated it.
You are grasping at straws to argue against causation, which (as I explained) undergirds all science and rationality itself.
He passed this stage of existence on to the creation and so we exist too.
When we perform experiments in the lab we assume the finite system always exists in the infinite surroundings. Just because a surrounding can be perceived in a small environment, like a test tube in the defined laboratory room (that is meant to be infinite) does not mean that this same finite logical can be applied to the Universe and the infinite Creator-God Jesus that created it.
In mathematics PMI, proof by mathematical induction, uses infinity to define finite systems but the logic of atheists to claim that finite systems can define infinity, in mathematical terms, does not work. Trying to define infinity with finite steps causes a divergent problem, unsolvable. Finite logic, like continually reverting to supposed future ideas of disproving the logic that 'infinity is so great that it can't be defined' thereby disproving the infinite God, shows a lack of rational thought. How does one define or even come to comprehend such an infinite God? Only by that infinite God revealing Himself by His finite revelation recorded and handed down to us by those He knew would keep His word intact and uncorrupted. What we read in the Bible is the revelation of history given to those that can be sure to keep it from corruption, see for instance the Isaiah scroll.
I'm glad you found the article helpful. We can know certain attributes of the Creator from the creation, as the article shows. However, we are meant to not just know about God but to know Him. How is this possible? It is possible because God has spoken propositional truths, as recorded in the Bible. He has also spoken in word and action in Jesus Christ, the unique 'Son of God', in essence God in human form.
God also operates in the world in the lives of people through the Holy Spirit, making Himself known to people.
If you are now a genuine seeker, rather than a scoffer, then God promises you will find him. As I wrote in the seekers and scoffers article (previous link):
"... the purpose of the Bible and the evidence in the world around us is to lead us to faith in God, not just knowing about God. We are not just to have an intellectual belief but a personal commitment to Jesus as our Savior and Lord. Such a trust goes beyond the evidence, but it is consistent with the evidence. The Bible promises that if we seek Him sincerely, we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). See Good News."
I hope this helps and you soon find yourself walking with God in His 'forever family'.
Contrary to the mythology spread around by such God-haters, Christianity actually gave us almost everything that is good today. See, for example: Christianity as progress.
Your submission deserves to be the 'last word' in comments on this article.
Another has said, "The fact that a person does not believe in God does not mean that He ceases to exist."
Bless you.
The thing that really struck me when reading this, however, is that if it is so obvious that this beautiful and complex (that's an understatement!) world had a Creator (which it clearly is) and people just don't want to be held accountable for a sinful lifestyle, why do they think that just because they came up with another theory and don't believe the truth that the truth is not true. That, to me, is like saying that the sky is not blue; it's actually green because I don't like blue. It absolutely is blue whether I believe it or not.
It crushes my heart to think that so many know that there is a Creator, and much more than that, a Savior, but instead, they trade that for a false atheistic belief, and "fun" lifestyle. Also, it leads me to believe that this could only be of the Devil because it is so incredibly clear that there is a Creator, but people choose to reject it anyway.
So, what is their problem with those people who believe in a God who does not exist? Why is it their life-goal to fight......nothing? Fight reality with dreams? Evolutionary logic? Any hint from the 'tree relatives'?
I am sure your intellect tells you there is a creator, but you have to side with the those who pay your wages.
Atheist and believers could both be wrong simultaniously about the concept of God. Believers as well as non-believers are worried that they are accountable - Believers obviously fear of accountability while Disbelievers are worried as they have to find an excuse for their sins while closing their eyes and claiming that "nothing exists" or simly they can fear about the end of their own existence.
But I have a different opinion and unbiased observation that God ( I would like to say "The Eternal Being") has been doing, is doing, and will be doing INDEPENDENT OF YOU,ME, AND EVERYTHING because "THE ETERNAL BEING" is independent of the cause. So no one can interrupt in His way or no one can be a cause of His applaus or wrath either by extreme sins or by extreme virtues.
THE PROBLEM SOLVED : No need to be worried and no need to be happy. Let the music.....
As for your 'solution', this is not new. It is known as deism. The Bible, however, reveals that while the Creator's ways are "higher than our ways" and that He does not depend on us (Acts 17), that is, He is transcendent, He also is also accessible to us as ones made "in the image of God". That is, we can 'know' Him. Jeremiah 29:13 says that if we seek him wholeheartedly we will find Him.
The Bible also purports to come from God; it is inspired by Him. It tells us that the Creator of all does hold his creatures accountable for their behaviour. That is, He will judge sin. But the wonderful thing is that He has made a way of escape from that judgment. Denial of the reality of judgment by trying to believe that God does not care will not stop it happening, so it is best to be ready! See Good news!
For example, Bart Ehrman claimed that the Virgin Birth account in Matthew contradicted the one in Luke. I disproved this claim in a matter of a few hours, simply by listing out all the events and then placing them in order int one account. Ehrman is a scholar of the New Testament, and he couldn't figure out how the two accounts complement each other? That is pathetic. Also, he claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity hinges on 1 John 5:7 alone? Are you serious? How can you study the New Testament and not be able to find the many other verses that point to the Trinity? I can't believe anyone even respects him as an authority.
I have found that if you know God's word, and you have His Holy Spirit within you, then you can understand His word better than the "wise men" of this age. Who is a greater scholar than the Spirit of the living God who inspired the word? No one.
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise" ~1 Corinthians 1:27
I WANT MY ANSWER
God says that if you seek Him wholeheartedly, you will find Him:
"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)
First Tenet of Theism: "Hide your proof in the unknown. When the unknown is discovered, hide your proof in the next unknown." If all of what we define as "nature" was caused by something else, then that something else is not necessarily "supernatural". The supernatural is just an invention of religion with no real meaningful properties. "Beyond space and time" say nothing really. If our big bang expansion was caused, for instance, by the collision of other big bang expansions, then such an event would be beyond our space and time, but will necessarily entail other space and time. The bottom line is this: don't ever jump to conclusions. Saying that a certain thing can ONLY be a certain way, without having all the pieces to the puzzle, is extremely foolish. Relying on intuition has historically had a hugely poor track record. Don't do that. I know you will probably say I didn't read the article and that my comment will not be posted because you do not want others to see my comment.
It does indeed appear that you have not read the article at all carefully, or engaged with it.
My propositions were logical deductions from what we know, not what we don't know. The more pieces of the puzzle we get, the more certain the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and that its beginning cannot ultimately be due to a material cause, which would be subject to the law of entropy and therefore would have also had to have had a beginning, etc. But then I am repeating the article's arguments.
Secondly they like to throw around the term 'zero-sum' universe, from Steven Hawking I think. Is there any validity to this? To me even a zero-sum universe had to come from somewhere.
Keep up the great work guys, your articles continue to be a terrific source of encouragement for me and a true 'thorn in the side' for friends of mine who like to think atheism is the only rational position.
For His glory
These are not new arguments. Regarding causality, I have discussed this above, in the article and in the responses to comments (see answer to Jason D., United States, 20 October 2012).
The zero sum idea is not new either; the idea that that big bang produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which it is claimed is effectively nothing. A big problem for the idea is that the amount of anti-matter needed is nowhere to be found in the universe: Missing antimatter challenges the big bang theory. Furthermore, if matter and anti-matter collide, the result is not nothing, but energy.
Atheism is not a rational position; atheists believe in numerous naturalistic miracles, with no adequate cause.
You may have *attempted* an answer but it is no answer. For the wor *causality* to have linguistic integrity, the INTENTION MUST precede the act. The nonsense of "simultaneity by philosophers is nonsense . It has never been observed, and you know it. "Infinity through dark glasses" is just meaningless.
As for my not having read the Bible, that's preposterous. I am a PhD Biblical DStusies student at Harvard, and I knkow more about it than you do. Whatever it is, the Bible is NOT a book of history. In archaic Hebrew there is not even a wrod for "history". It's "literature", not "history". It's a compilation of various forms of "literature". As Dr. BB Scott from the Tulsa seminary says, in "The Problem with Resurrection", it has NOTHING to do with "history". The modern American Fundamentalist literalism is WAY off the rails, secondary to ignorance, and a lack of real education. Archaeology confirms some events, and also, in many cases confirms that the so-called historical events could not have happened the way they were presented in the Bible. For example camels were not domesticated until 1000 BCE. Do you get wht that means for ALL the dating in the Old Testament ? We also know that the Torah of Moses was written during the Exile, when they conbined J, E, P, and the Babylonian myths. All og Genesis 1 is myth, taken directly from Babylonian/Sumerian myth. Scholars don't even debate that any more. Where did you get your education ?
If you have read the Bible as you claim, then you have no excuse for your unbelief; none whatever. That makes your situation even more dire.
And because you are a biblical studies student at Harvard you know more about the Bible than I do? I don't see how being a student at Harvard (or anywhere) tells you that you know more about anything than someone else. The logic escapes me. The most important thing I learned as a PhD student was that I didn't know much at all! It should be a humbling experience. But let's look at some of your claims and see how much you have learned at Harvard that is actually true or defensible.
You say, "Whatever it is, the Bible is NOT a book of history." So, you don't know what it is, but it's not history? You say that it's "'literature', not 'history'"? What type of literature? Of course the Bible is not just a book of history, but its overarching framework is a claim about history; the history of the universe from the beginning to the end. Genesis in particular is meant to be understood as history, as the Oxford University Hebrew Professor James Barr stated. See Should Genesis be taken literally?
You claim that biblical Hebrew has no word for 'history', as if this proves they did not know what history was (another non sequitur). They had no actual word for universe either, but clearly understood the concept, coupling heavens and earth together to convey the concept (a construction known to grammarians as a merism). But according to Edward Robinson’s translation of a complete index to Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, published in 1877, the Hebrew word for history is 'toledot', usually translated as 'generations' (e.g. Genesis 2:4, 5:1, 10:1, etc.).
Since there are many archaeological confirmations of the events recorded in the Bible, if the Bible is not about history in these areas, then neither is archaeology, which would be rather bizarre! You even admit that archaeology confirms events in the Bible, then claim the Bible is not about history. That does not seem at all logical.
Yes, I know that you are a theology student at Harvard, but have you ever actually read Kings or Chronicles? I fail to see how you could read these and not see the historical nature of this 'literature'.
And there is plenty of evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus happened in time and space (i.e, real history). And if the Resurrection did not actually occur, there is no point to Christianity and I don't know why you are bothering to even study theology; what a waste of time!!! See The Resurrection of Jesus and the related reading. Many a skeptic has set out to disprove the historicity (reality) of the Resurrection and ended up convinced it happened and converted to Christ (e.g., lawyer Frank Morison, who wrote Who Moved the Stone?).
You claim "The modern American Fundamentalist literalism is WAY off the rails, secondary to ignorance, and a lack of real education." Wow! Firstly I am not an American. Secondly, this 'literalism' as you call it, is nothing more or less than the view of Bible scholars for 1850 years before the modern era of so-called 'liberal' theology, which is nothing more than the same lie that the serpent said to Eve in the beginning, "Did God really say?".
You claim that archaeology disproves some historical claims of the Bible. I could ask how archaeology could do that unless the Bible was about history? :-) As your (best?) example you offer the domestication of camels being supposedly much later than the Bible claims. However, this is a very old claim that has long since been shown to be wrong; see the short article about camels on About.com.
And then you claim, "We also know that the Torah of Moses was written during the Exile, when they conbined J, E, P, and the Babylonian myths."
I do wonder how you would 'know' this when there is not a skerrick of evidence for the existence of these supposed scribes at the time of Ezra, a thousand years after Moses! This 19th century idea has also long since been discredited. The JEDP idea (documentary hypothesis) absolutely disregards the large-scale structures in Genesis that we simply wouldn't see if it was simply cobbled together—the genuine indications of prior sources fit very well with Moses acting as a sort of editor with pre-existing sources. Indeed there are large-scale structures in the text that show it had one author/redacteur. And Genesis 1 couldn't have been taken directly from Babylonian or Sumerian myth—did you miss the distinctive Jewish monotheism and thinly-veiled polemic against sun and star worship? Even scholars of a liberal bent have debunked the documentary hypothesis. See also, Did Moses really write Genesis?
Might I suggest that you broaden your studies to include the work of some of today's best evangelical scholars, such as D.A. Carson, Grant Osborne, and Douglas Moo, among others. If what you have written here is any indication, you are not being trained to think at Harvard, but just to parrot the rather out-dated ideas of your liberal professors.
I stand corrected on flat earth dates, but "the Jewish conception of a flat earth is to be found in biblical as in post biblical times. (Wikipedia: Flat Earth). I stand by my assertion that because most people consider something as true does not make it true.
You characterize atheists as "believing" in the "naturalistic origin of the universe from nothing with no cause." Many atheists and believers alike do "accept current cosmological research on the possible origin of the universe as the best current explanation but subject to change." I don't think of this is a "belief" in the religious sense.
I'm aware that the concept of God, and other religious ideas such as virgin birth, pre-dated Christian adoption of them. I was just limiting my statements to the Judeo-Christian context.
I'm glad we cleared up the myth of the flat earth, but Wikipedia is not a very reliable source of information, especially when it comes to things to do with the Bible. The Bible does not teach a flat earth; for a refutation of one common attempt to say so, see Does the Bible teach a mythological cosmology?
I completely agree with your assertion that because most people consider something as true does not make it true. That goes for belief in the big bang, the naturalistic origin of life and biological evolution, etc. Even if the majority of academia believe something, it does not make it true! See, for example, what Michael Crichton said about the appeal to scientific consensus, which we hear all the time when it comes to ideas about origins.
An atheist's acceptance of the naturalistic origin of everything is very much a belief system. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse made this very point: The religious nature of evolution. That there is 'research' by 'scientists' that tries to justify this belief system does not make it any less a belief.
The concept of God and the virgin birth pre-dated Christian adoption of them? How can the concept of God pre-date Genesis chapter 1, which is the origin of everything? :-) This is very much foundational to Christian belief, which did not begin with the New Testament. As for the virgin birth being copied from prior pagan sources, this does not stack up either: Alleged pagan derivation of virgin birth.
I appreciate that you recognize that not all religions are the same and so have confined your commments to Christian thought.
1. The cause of the universe’s beginning must be outside of space-matter-time.
2. Such a cause would not have a beginning.
3. The cause of the universe had to be incredibly powerful.
4. God is outside of space-matter-time, God has no beginning, God is incredibly powerful.
5. Therefore the cause of the universe must be the God of the Bible.
BTW, posting Bible quotes to support an argument is circular. The Bible was written by believer about what they already believed to remind themselves what they already believed. The Bible does not "tell" us anything, except what the believers already believed. Either language has linguistic integrity, or it doesn't. Action verbs "before" time are meaningless.
As for using the Bible being circular, see: Are biblical creationists guilty of circular reasoning?
Your view of the Bible merely being the writings of believers telling us what they believed suggests that you have never read the Bible. The Bible is largely a book of history; records of events in space and time. The theology connects with the historical events (such as the Resurrection). Archaeology confirms many of the historical events (where evidence has been found). When skeptics have attacked the Bible it has had a track record of later being proved correct. See Archaeology Q&A.
I can't speak for all atheists, but my understanding of atheism is that it does not involve beliefs. To the contrary, atheist thought is built on critical thinking. The reason that atheism embraces "rational" and "scientific" is that atheists ask for "evidence" and "logic." Generally, atheists don't claim to have the answers, but they do resist answers given by others in the absence of plausibility or proof.
Who created God? (By this, I presume the Judeo-Christion notion of God.) An astounding amount of evidence suggests that God was created by ancient Jewish tribal leaders. God and relion provided a cultural foundation, quelled the fears of superstitious people, answered unanswerable questions about existence and life, and helped maintain law and order.
BTW, the idea that almost everyone believed in a flat earth is a myth invented by American writer Washington Irving in the early 1800s and popularized by atheist Andrew Dickson White, in the late 1800s; see Who invented the flat earth?
As for atheism not involving beliefs but you say it is founded on critical thinking, this shows serious philosophical naivety; all systems of thought are founded on beliefs. And atheists actually believe all manner of implausible things without proof; for example, the naturalistic origin of the universe from nothing with no cause and the origin of life purely from the laws of physics and chemistry; laws which say that such an origin is impossible. I suggest reading some of the articles on creation.com on the origin of life for example. It takes incredible 'faith' to be an atheist in the light of modern scientific knowledge; see Although widely respected, the Grand Theory of Evolution is really quite preposterous.
And "an astounding amount of evidence suggests that God was created by ancient Jewish tribal leaders"? I think you are confusing 19th century story telling and evidence. There is now a huge amount of anthropological evidence that monotheism was original and degenerated into polytheism and animism in various people groups. See, for example: Wilhelm Schmidt and the origin of religion.
Yes, Christianity does provide a strong, stable cultural foundation, resulting in the most just and free societies that have ever existed. It also quells superstition, answers the big questions about where we came from, why we are here and where we are going, and also helps maintain law and order. You should be a Christian, Rob! :-)
Now just to prove that God had no beginning or is that self evident?
“Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.”
I encourage you to read a lot more on creation.com. You might find that our Ark is not quite about to sink as you think. In Luke 17 Jesus likened the 'last days' to the times of Noah when people were going about their business, living sinful lives and trying to ignore God, when the Flood came and "destroyed them all". Jesus of course was referring to the judgment to come, for which we need to be prepared.
Thoughts of life after life on earth are not "presumptuous" but rooted in the evidence of Jesus' resurrection (see: The Resurrection of Jesus and related reading at the end of the article. This is one of the many reasons why Christianity is in a different league to other world religions. When the 'world's most notorious atheist' Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the powerful evidence for design, he acknowledged that only Christianity was worthy of consideration.
If you are looking to science for satisfaction, you will continue to be disappointed. It is a powerful way of discovering how things operate today, but it is a very deficient tool for discovering the origin of everything in the past (what experiments can be done on the past?). See It's not science! Science is even more deficient (silent!) about why we are here and where we are going. We can only know these things from what God has revealed to us. The Bible claims with good authority to be that revelation of God; I recommend you read it, trying to do so with an open mind. God says that if we seek Him we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13).
Your original comment:
I love your reasoning in this article because it proves that not all Christians are bible thumping maniacs who don't actually bother to read the text they quote so often... As an Atheist myself, I turn to science to answer my questions and I often find the answers unsatisfying. My biggest annoyance though is when people set out to disprove a theory without presenting a plausible alternative. To quote another Atheist, "We don't know, so therefore MY god did it with magic." Not only is this a horrible argument, but a waste of time. There are thousands of religions and creation myths, why is Christianity more plausible than any other? Personal belief has no place in a scientific argument. I believe in the theory of the "Big Bang" but I have no illusions about the many flaws it has. (See dark matter/energy) My belief that dark matter exists isn't reason enough to discredit other theories based on my belief alone. Your article, while interesting (especially your analysis of proteins) is for lack of a better word, useless. If you want to add your piece to the puzzle of existence by providing a scientific theory that stands up to experimentation and analysis, fine. But don't waste your time trying to promote your fictional god as an "intelligent designer" of the world because, to put it in the words of the great Richard Dawkins, that's just a "god of the gaps." Now I'd like to say in the last few characters remaining I have :P that I really encourage you to explore the world of science further, and to perhaps keep in mind the massive changes in scientific thinking we've undergone in only the last hundred years. I'd say you're on your ark... and it's sinking.
“Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.”
The Bible tells us that Jesus the Messiah was the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16). But then it also makes it clear that He was 'God in the flesh' and indeed the eternal Son of God with the Father and Holy Spirit, so He was not created. See: a biblical defence of the trinity.
You say that it's illogical to define God in terms of religion (!!!?). How else can we talk about God? God is not a being of flesh and blood or physical matter, but supernatural/spiritual. We cannot talk of God in terms of physics and chemistry.
How can we know the beginning of the universe and the way it was then except that God revealed it to us? The Bible claims to be that revelation of God. And it authenticates itself as the 'Word of God'. These matters of history recorded in the Bible are not accessible to science, which can only observe and test things in the present (see It's not science!).
So the Bible reveals that God created a world with "equal opportunity for everyone"; it was paradise. But mankind's rebellion against his Creator resulted in the dislocation of things that we see today, as God withdrew some of his sustaining power. The Bible also reveals that in the future there will be a restored Paradise where the groaning and decay of this world will be gone.
If you want to be part of that, you need to respond to God's offer of forgiveness for your own rebellion that is available through Jesus Christ.
Your assertion that existence itself requires time assumes a material existence and the argument is that something had to be non-material (supernatural) and therefore capable of being eternal or timeless that brought the universe into existence.
The Creator-God of the Bible has relational attributes such as love because they are intrinsic to the triune nature of God. See Who really is the God of Genesis?
You are right, evil is not there just to balance things. That is a concept foreign to the Bible.
God created a "very good" creation (Genesis 1:31). Bad things such as death and suffering came to be because of the rebellion of Adam and Eve, the first people, against God. Many articles on creation.com discuss this:
Death and suffering questions and answers.
I hope this helps answer your question about bad things existing but God is good.
Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Jesus died that we need not be punished for our sins (rebellion against God). See Good news!
And you want more information before making any decision. However, God says that you have enough information now. Romans 1:20 (see the article) says that no one has any excuse for living as if God does not exist (that is what you are doing; you are living as an atheist, although you don't want to wear the label).
I hope you don't apply this fence sitting approach to other decisions of life. Perhaps you will never get married because you will never have enough information to know for sure that a particular lady will really be 'the one'? Or maybe a better option will come along? I mean you can never know 'for sure' can you?
I'm not sure what you mean by objecting to "it is not important to want to understand creation", as we don't say that it is not important and modern science was founded by devout Christians. BTW, the chicken came first (it's really quite simple).
You say you have experienced lots of "religion, especially Christianity", however, I submit that you have never followed Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or you would not speak as you do. Jesus calls us to follow Him, not experience a religion. 'Religion' will save no one, but Jesus will.
I hope that you will exercize the thinking skills that God gave you to realize that you will be accountable to Him and that you do need to be forgiven for your rebellion (sin); before it is too late. As the Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 "... it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment".
If God is omnipotent then he could have created all in the blink of his eye no six days needed. So why the games? I agree that the theories of creation and evolution are not complete or do they answer all questions that is why they are theories. I have a hundred questions about your bible's version of creation. I'd love to put them out one by one and see the answers. You do realize that the creation myth is in many cultures all over the world and many before your claim. So why is the christian one right and everybody else is wrong.
I believe in an omnipotent God but not the one you apparently believe. The belief that the earth and existence is only 6,000 years old is a bad joke. Please explain the dinosaurs. Maybe you'll tell me the sun goes around the earth and we're the center of the universe. What happened to that "truth".
Blind faith is simply that blind. So the make believe science claims that the author makes are just foolishness. Quantum mechanics is something all together different. String theory is the theory of the multiverse. This myth cannot answer the question of life (as we know it) or the creation of the universe.
I assumed no such thing.
Re your other questions, you agreed that you checked creation.com for answers, which you clearly have not, because almost every question/objection you raise is answered.
Try the search box top right; 'it's your friend'. :-)
Has Dawkins presnted his 'God delusion' to the Wahhabis?
Jesus said at Mark 10:15, “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
”God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6 & 1 Peter 5:5
How can "pure science prove or disprove anything" to do with the origin of things in the distant past? What experiments can be done on past events? See: It's not science!
I have presented scientific, logical evidence for the existence of God as revealed also in the Bible, which you apparently have no answer to. Is that the reason for the personal abuse and fact-free assertion?
Copernicus believed in God, as did Galileo.
I note that you avoided the origin of life. This demands extreme creative intelligence applied in the universe that we know the properties of fairly well (properties that are not capable of creating life). This is also consistent with the attributes of the Creator revealed in the Bible.
When confronted with the difficulties in their beliefs they can't give answers without resorting to attacks on religion. Dawkins uses apologetics and personal appeals but claims to be a man of reason and logic.
If you take this into account the argument here would lose its basis.
Simply - what is your answer?
Who created God?
God could not have created himself - and he/she/it could not have just materialized into being.
Simple question - no answer.
Just by saying "God is almighty" does not answer this simple question.
Its just as "The Wheel" which no one can defeat...
A-THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD
"but how can you be sure it is the word of God?"
B-BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO
"but why believe the bible?"
C-THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE
"but how do you know that it is infallible?"
A-THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.....
repeat
If one says that God must have a beginning, then they trap Him within His own creation and He is clearly outside of it. At times, I think that the universe must be like a glass snowglobe to Him.
As for "many physicists" proposing a meta-universe with no beginning? Not many, but some, and merely because they propose something does not mean it is a viable idea. Indeed all attempts at eternal matter founder, as a recent New Scientist article showed: Physicists: The universe had a beginning.
'Bad design' proves things were not designed by God? Knees? Mine are fine and have worked perfectly for three decades. The design of the human knee is a huge problem for evolution. See also: Are ‘defective’ knee joints evidence for Darwinism? And see other articles about supposed 'bad design' as a bad argument and specific claims of examples of 'bad design', which are not. Even if the claims of 'bad design' were defensible, the examples still show a level of design way beyond the reach of evolution. So this theological argument does nothing to prove that 'evolution did it'.
Such things as cancer and extinction of animals have to be seen in the light of the Fall (Genesis 3, Romans 8, etc.), where some of God's sustaining power was removed from the creation.
If they started to believe in Creation, they must believe in the God of the bible. Atheists and sinners are not ready to give up there immoral lifestyle, so they look for another belief that casually fits in to there life.
It’s not science, it’s a choice, a belief system that allows man to believe he only has to answer to himself.
Keep up the good work.
If your hypothetical wizard is a material entity, then you have not solved the problem of a sufficient cause because he would have to have a beginning also. What caused the wizard?
Furthermore, there is a consistent witness from the Bible and history to the existence of the God of the Bible (such as the Resurrection and the survival of the early church, and fulfilled prophecy), which reinforces the testimony of what we see around us. However, the wizard is just your mental construct, which not even you believe in.
Any way you look at it, you are ‘snookered’ and the truth of Romans 1, cited near the end of the article, rings true. Of course no one can prove to you that the Creator-God of the Bible exists if you resolutely choose not to believe. However, if you are open to the possibility of God’s existence, then God has promised, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13).
We need to pray before engaging atheists because they may hear the logic with their ears but not with their heart. They don't want to accept it because they love their sin more than the light.
The Spirit of the un-caused God is the one who breaks the barriers, as He did with me!
It is fun though to listen to people spout this diatribe.
Thanks for the read.
Although it cannot be proven that it wasn't, there is no evidence to suggest that it was. What can be asserted without evidence, can be equally dismissed without evidence.
Russel's problem comes mainly from the fundamental concept of God, not a misunderstanding of the role he would take: Russel questions how it can be possible that he has no beginning. Something which has no explainable beginning cannot be answered by stating it simply has no beginning (unless strong scientific evidence suggests otherwise).
I'm not sure whether he attempts to use this to disprove God, however it certainly shows the flaw in the beginning of the universe under any circumstance.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.