Atheists love to whip out the question “Who created God?” like it’s a trump card they think will stump any Christian in their tracks. They pose it with a smirk and such confidence thinking it’s the unanswerable zinger that’ll make you renounce your faith on the spot.
When you answer that God is not created, that He is eternal, some atheists try to push back saying “If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause too!” or “There are mathematical models suggesting the universe could be eternal, so why can’t that be the case?” For some Christians, it’s enough to make them pause and ponder for a moment.
But here’s the truth: this question is more like a schoolyard taunt than a serious philosophical challenge. It’s a bit childish, really.
Let me show you.
The Category Mistake Fallacy
Let’s start by tackling a common mistake: the category mistake fallacy.
This fallacy occurs when someone attributes a property to something that cannot possibly have that property. It’s like asking, “What color is the number seven?” The question itself is nonsensical because numbers don’t have colors.
Now, consider the question “Who created God?”
This question assumes that God is a created being, lumping Him into the same category as everything else in the universe that we know has a cause.
Not everything that exists has a cause for its existence. God, by definition, isn’t part of the universe’s created order. He’s not a thing among other things; He’s the foundation of all things.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. God doesn’t fit into the category of things that need a cause because He’s not a contingent being. God did not begin to exist. He’s the necessary being, the one who doesn’t need a cause.
Usually, atheists accuse us of committing the special pleading fallacy when we reply like this.
This fallacy pops up when someone applies a rule to others but makes an unjustified exception for themselves.
In the question “Who created God?” the questioner usually accepts that things within the universe need causes but then doesn’t allow for the possibility that God is an exception.
Here’s why this fallacy doesn’t apply.
When we say God is uncaused, we’re not just making up an unjustified exception on a whim.
The concept of God as an uncaused being isn’t arbitrary.
God, by definition, is a necessary being. Necessary beings are fundamentally different from contingent beings—those that exist because something else caused them.
A necessary being exists by its own nature and cannot not exist. This is what God is, a maximally great being. A being that has all great making properties to its maximum extension. This includes necessary existence.
Think about this: Can a triangle have four sides? No right. Why?
Because to be a triangle it is necessary to have only three sides. More or less sides it will cease to be a triangle.
Same thing with God. God is the maximal great being. A created god is less great than an eternal, uncreated God.
The Infinite Regression Fallacy
Next, let’s dive into the infinite regression fallacy.
This one sound fancy, but it’s pretty straightforward.
The fallacy happens when someone assumes that every cause must have a prior cause, leading to an endless chain of causes. If you ask, “Who created God?” and then “Who created the creator of God?” you end up in an infinite loop that will never end.
Picture a row of dominoes.
Each domino falls because the one before it knocked it over. But for the dominoes to start falling, there must be a first push—a cause that itself doesn’t need to be caused.
Without that first push, nothing else would happen. In the same way, God is the “first push” of the universe. He’s the uncaused cause, the one who starts the chain but isn’t part of the chain.
Some might push back saying “But if God doesn’t require a cause, why the universe should have a cause? It might be that the universe is eternal too and there are some mathematical models that shows this is possible”.
A mathematical model is a hypothesis. It at least shows that it might be coherent or not illogical in some sense, but the thing is that we have solid evidence that the universe had a beginning and not bouncing around like in the oscillatory model.
Here’s where science comes in to back us up.
Cosmologists, including heavyweights like Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have shown that the universe had a beginning with their theorem the Board-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem or BGV theorem.
It says,
Any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning.
This theorem also applies to a potential “multiverse” if it exists.
This aligns perfectly with the idea that there must be an initial cause outside the universe itself.
Obviously other cosmologists differ.
In his book “The Grand Design,” Hawking famously stated: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
He believed that the universe’s existence didn’t require a creator or external agency. Instead, natural laws allowed it to emerge spontaneously.
The thing is you can’t have the law of gravity with the existence of matter, space, time and energy. There’s no law of physics without the existence of physics.
Like the astrophysicists Lawrence Krauss, he needs to use the word nothing to mean something other than not anything. In this case, by nothing they mean a quantum vacuum, which is not nothing.
Recommended Reading: A Universe From Nothing? Dr. Krauss Explains Nothing
Other cosmologists like Roger Penrose have reinforced this idea of the universe having an absolute beginning.
He stated,
“There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there, and it runs along—it’s a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing”.
Purpose requires a will, and only personal agents have wills.
So, when someone asks, “Who created God?” they’re missing the point. The universe’s beginning points to the necessity of an uncaused cause. And God fits that role perfectly. Without an uncaused cause, we’re stuck with an infinite regression that doesn’t solve anything.
In fact, if it is true that there was an infinite past, we would have never arrived to today. The fact that today exists, it’s at least good rational grounds to believe there was never an eternal past.
Wrapping It All Up
Remember, the category mistake fallacy shows that the question itself misunderstands the nature of God and how it doesn’t commit the special pleading fallacy by understanding God as a necessary being, with no need of a cause.
The infinite regression fallacy highlights the necessity of an uncaused cause, backed by both philosophy and science.
Let these replies be your go-to responses. Be confident, be clear. Your faith isn’t just a belief; it’s a well-reasoned stance that holds up under scrutiny.
Now, go out there and share it with confidence.
Psst… If you want to know why your stubborn atheist friend wont change his mind about God and Christianity, check this next post
Why Your Atheist Friend Will Never Change His Mind (Unless…)