- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The skeptic asks, “If God created the universe, then who created God?”
God, by definition, is uncreated, so the question, “Who created God?” is illogical. A better question would be, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need one?”
Everything which has a beginning has a cause. If the universe had a beginning; then the universe has a cause. God, however had no beginning, so he does not need a cause.
Einstein’s general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he must also be the creator of time and thus is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning.
It is like explaining the difference between a finite number and an infinity. If you quote any whole finite number you will theoretically be able to count backwards to zero one number at a time (if you live long enough). If you quote an infinite whole number, you cannot count back to zero one number at a time. There would never be enough time to count back to zero.
God has no beginning and no end and if you don’t believe that this is possible, then your pre-requisite of such proof will mean that you will never be able to see the infinite God. In other words, if you require results from a finite experiment using finite objects and instruments to prove God, then your prerequisite of limiting your findings to finite experiments means that you will only ever see finite results, and thus you will never prove the existence of the eternal God.
Is it theoretically possible that the cause of all finality is perhaps infinite? If the universe is big, then is the cause even bigger. If the universe is old, then is the cause older. If the universe is beyond comprehension, then is the cause even more so. And if the universe contains life, then shouldn’t the cause have that very attribute too, after all it produced it in the universe.
Whatever we observe in our existence, the cause must have the original qualities, possibilities, or potential of that which it put in motion. The Atheist closes his eyes to this. He says that there is no cause or that if there was a cause, then it was certainly non-living/non-intelligent. His bias eliminates one of only 3 possible explanations as to the cause of existence.
- God caused/created the universe.
- Something (non-living) caused the universe.
- Nothing caused the universe.
A person who cannot get passed the idea that God created all things and that God himself was not created, is a person who aptly demonstrates his lack of understanding of infinity. It is not hard to grasp the fact that the earliest thing has to be eternal because if that is not the case, then the universe or the earliest thing was preceded by nothing. Everything or anything coming from nothing is impossible because if nothing can actually do something, then it is by definition not nothing, rather something.
To read more about the possible causes of the Universe or existence, see my writing called:
The universe is beyond our grasp.
The earth is just a speck of dust in the universe.
How small are we and our brain?
Yet we speak as we have the knowledge to comprehend all the answers.
Who created God. Just like a small worm asking,great questions but can never can comprehend the answer.
The worm should ask; What am I here for? Just eat, get fat and die?
The first question a man should ask is, what am I here for?
And then seek for the answers through the book of the creator.
Not rejecting the book before He has gone through reading it.
Great questions can only be answered by the great creator. First we must know God,before we ask who created God.
He said;he is from everlasting,and that alone we can not comprehend,
because we are just a speck of dust.We should seek first;then ask great questions.The answer to the question is. God is not created,but he was from everlasting.A word we can not understand,because we are bound by time. In God’s abode,yesterday is today and tomorrow.wakeup.
I think that God and the universe are co-creators. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. God is a social-relational being and so arises out of God’s relationships to the universe. So, it is as true to say that God creates the universe, as that the universe creates God.
God is the lawgiver. The physical universe is governed by laws. But laws come from an intellect or mind. They are not tangible or created. Yes the universe is perhaps created and governed by laws, but God spoke those laws into being. He commanded creation to come into existence. The physical universe has no bearing on God himself. He exists outside his own creation as well as within it by his spirit where sin doesn’t dwell.
Certainly the logic of perfection from classical theism would agree with you. God is understood as wholly self-sufficient, wholly immutable, and wholly unaffected by the universe. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God i outside the whole order of creation and has no “real relationship” to it. However, I am very critical of the classical model. I argue it makes the universe meaningless to God and then ultimately meaningless to ourselves as well. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it’s all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. But I can put no faith in an indifferent God. If God could be just as happy, whole, and complete without the universe as with it, then why did God bother to create it? If it is just for us, not for God, then God should butt out. And what sense does it make to speak of serving God? What can you serve a God who already has everything and needs nothing? We all seek a beautiful relationship with God. Now beauty means both diversity and uniformity. Hence, a God seen as absolutely identical to ourselves is boring. A God seen as wholly other than us appears too discordant. We need to think of God as both alike and also different from us. We people speak of God as a nonrelational static being, that is just too far from our basic experience and understanding of reality for it to be true and any way near affirming a beautiful relationship with God. Furthermore, the idea of a wholly static, self-sufficient God rests on lopsided concept of perfection. It assumes that immutability is superior to mutability, independence to dependence, , altruism to egotism, etc. It would appear to be the case that the early fathers set up lists of seemingly contrary attributes, such as being vs. becoming, cause vs. effect, etc., and then went down the list, assigning only one side of the polarity to God. I argue both sides of any such polarity represent perfections and that nothing truly real can be described with reference to only one pole. If it is virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. Also, the classical model had trouble with God’s omnipresence. In this model, God and the spacio-temporal world are seen as mutually exclusive, polar opposites. Hence, the world of complexity and change is reduced to being an anti-God principle and stands over and against God such as to exclude God’s presence. A cask cannot hold two liquors. Where God goes in, creatures go out, and vice versa. That’s why Aquinas stressed that God is “outside” the universe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
