If God created the universe, then who created God?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi everyone. I'm temporarily back from my melt-down. Woo-hoo! Anyhow, I love this quote from Sand so if it's okay I'm going to use it for my own reasoning....

Let's focus on observable phenomena. As far as we know everything that exists has a preceding cause (as stated by the OP). If we extend this knowledge to unobservable phenomena (as Sand suggested) it would follow that the universe has a cause which also has a cause and so on for an infinite regressive time. I'm just following logic here, no beliefs. However both infinity and god as a creator cannot be observed, and the boundaries of what science can observe are constantly moving. This makes the following explanations all somewhat unreliable.

1) Science. Pretty much nothing else exists beyond what science can establish from direct observation. We have observed throughout history that science is continually making new discoveries - so it would follow that more discoveries will continue to be made in the future.

2) God as creator. According to current observation there is nothing that exists without a cause. Just because an exception to this rule (eg. an unoriginated God) has not been observed doesn't necessitate its non-existence. Even though this explanation doesn't follow logically - as mentioned in the first explanation - science is continually making new discoveries, so perhaps the universal law of cause and effect is not so universal afterall.

3) Infinite regression. According to current observation there is nothing that exists without a cause. So it would follow that there is no such thing as an unoriginated beginning (or even an unoriginated creator). Just because infinity cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible. Afterall - it is actually the most logical explanation based on current observation.

In any given time it is known that science is limited as to what it can observe, and therefore what it can explain. So the question I pose is this: would you follow something that doesn't know; or something that can't be observed AND breaks the rules of logic; or something that can't be observed BUT follows the rules of logic as far as we know?

Then I would consider the methods we rely on in our quest for answers.
Those who rely on science are content to die knowing that future generations will know more than they do.
Those who rely on God are content to die knowing that all answers will be provided at the time of death.
Those who rely on an infinite regression are NOT content to die without answers, and will instead use particular meditation techniques for an expansion of their consciousness which supposedly brings with it the realisation of the nature of existence during their lifetime (eg. buddhists).
In all 3 scenarios a degree of faith is required.

Proving there's an uncaused cause isn't proving God exists unless you believe that being creator is God's only significant attribute. And if that's the case, who cares. Such a God isn't relevant to my life. Such a God is in the past. There's no evidence from the argument that this "God" has any power at all in the present. Nor even any influence.

The fallacy is, prove something with a certain name, and then you think you've proved something else with the same name.

That argument from first causes does not prove the God that's relevant to my life exists. I've no proof of the existance of this God. But I do know that believing in God made a powerful difference in my life, and that spirituality continues to make a positive difference in my life. Good enough for me.