What do you say when someone asks, “Who made God?”

If you’ve ever been asked, “Who made God,” please read this so you’ll know how to answer them.

Who created God?

Not long ago, I read a book by Professor Edgar Andrews entitled “Who Made God.” In his book, Professor Andrews states that the goal is not to refute atheistic claims, but to develop a theory of everything (p. 10), including who created God, if God was created. Of course, Andrews believes in God, but he wants to bring a rational, logical approach to the question, “Who made God?” His answer covers both the physical and non-physical aspects of the universe. This question has been repeatedly asked by Richard Dawkins publicly and in his book “The God Delusion”. Who created God is the atheist’s most frequent philosophical weapon and objection to the existence of God, but there is a rational answer to that question.

Who created everything?

Professor Andrews addresses the argument that a “man-made god” is actually the opposite of what Christians claim to be true. But then the professor asks, “If we created God, then who created us” (p. 17)? Evolution is not so much the cause of anything, but rather involves classification and observation. Evolution is not related to the reason that created us or who or what made matter. Turning the tables, you might ask the atheist, “If evolution made us, then who made evolution” (p. 18)? The atheist might answer, “Everything around us” made us, to which we can ask, “Who made everything around us?” It’s like a circular, never-ending cycle called a tautology. If A creates B, then A must be greater than B (p. 19). Professor Andrews uses the example that Beethoven was more than he composed. Another way to look at this “who made God” question is to use the example of his wife making a cake. His wife bakes cakes. The cake exists for a time, but then it is eaten, and it is gone. Now it has ceased to exist. The wife must be greater than the cake he made, because he continues to exist and thus, his wife is greater than his creation, the cake. That which is created and that which exists must be greater than that which was created.

possibilities

It seems a reasonable statement that a God who created an extremely complex universe must be more vast and complex than his creation, but those who deny the existence of God point to probability theory, which is a branch of mathematics using numbers (for example, the probability that a coin will land heads or tails is in the number “x”). Probability is graphed on an XY graph, which is a curve depicting the probabilities of a particular sequence (page 20). Professor Andrews successfully dismisses probability theory as “nothing of the real world” (p. 20). You deal with possibilities every day. For example, if there’s a 30% chance of rain, you might bring an umbrella, but if there’s a 90% chance of rain, you might bring your umbrella and wear a raincoat. Now think about this. Did the chance of rain (30%) actually cause the rain? Have meteorologists’ forecast changed atmospheric conditions enough to create higher dew points and falling barometers? Absolutely not! The weather radio told us there was a “chance” of rain, but it didn’t rain. There is no power in possibility. It doesn’t matter. It can’t do anything. It’s just something likely to happen. It doesn’t matter if something happens or doesn’t happen. The universe could not have been caused by “chance” or “random accidents”, such as a tornado hitting a printing press and an encyclopedia.

no chance

Richard Dawkins ignores the fact that chance can do nothing and produce no effect. Nevertheless, in another of his books, Climbing Mount Improbable, he praises astronomical probabilities as confirmation of a possible outcome, again ignoring the fact that chance is a non-event, or a non-physical phenomenon. is the catalyst; It is a non-factor and cannot be said to be the cause of anything. In the science of thermodynamics, its statistical probabilities of spontaneous events are used by Dawkins as a causal force. He equates the statistical probabilities of spontaneous events with those related mathematically to the degree of order or complexity in the system (p. 22). Low complexity requires high entropy or randomness, whereas high complexity necessarily requires low entropy or randomness. Professor Andrews uses the example of a china bowl being dropped and shattered as being less ordered. If you collect these broken pieces on the floor and drop them again, will they become more complex or will they become more organized? Obviously, it would move towards more chaos and go back to the “don’t work your way around” complexity, which characterizes evolution. Making the broken bowl more orderly requires “… more directed energy investment and intelligent effort; therefore, “it can never happen by itself” (p. 23). Dawkins, in contrast, believes that it , apparently, and this can fly in the face of the science of thermodynamics. Low complexity can be served by randomness, for example, 6 dice dropped on the floor for a circle. High complexity “… random form have a negligible chance of occurring randomly or spontaneously” (p. 23).

god creator

Professor Andrews knows that God is the Creator, and writes that the universe, or all physical matter, “…represents a highly improbable arrangement of matter and energy, an extremely improbable arrangement” (p. 23). This cannot happen by chance or by “accident”. Professor Andrews writes, “The laws of the fundamental constants of nature give every appearance of being fine-tuned to allow the existence of intelligent life on Earth,” known as the Anthropic Principle (p. 23). The possibility of a complex universe and life coming together by chance is like trying to restore a broken china bowl by constantly scattering the pieces. As you can see, this is highly improbable because of “its peculiarly formed” substance and size of china (p. 24). Albert Einstein summarized that, “You can live in only two ways. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle. I believe in the latter”. Professor Andrews leaving us with a powerful statement: “Science can describe the fundamental structures of matter, energy, space and time but can hardly be said to explain them” (p. 27).

conclusion

Occasionally, you will hear the statement, “God must have a reason,” but then they are assuming that there is no spiritual or non-physical realm, which is impossible to prove (p. 25). Thomas Edison said, “We don’t know one millionth part of a percent about anything,” and he is right, but the universe shows the existence of God as the Creator (Psalm 19:1-2 ), so there is no excuse for non-believers (Rom 1:18-20). It’s like saying, “How long is a piece of string?” The question is, which string do you mean? Professor Andrews concluded by saying, “There can be no logical answer to an illogical question” (p. 26) such as “Who created God.” The question then becomes “Who created the uncreated” (p. 26)? We must be ready at all times to answer for the hope that is found in Christ, but we must always answer them with humility and respect (1 Peter 3:15). There was never an argument with anyone in heaven or outside hell.

Edgar Andrews, Professor Emeritus, University of London.
Who created God? EP Books, Darlington, England. Copyright, 2009 ISBN-13 (978-0-85234-707-2)

May God richly bless you,