If God Made the Universe, Who Made God? by Paul Copan

[foreversaved]

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell mused, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." But the question of what or who caused God is misguided.

First, science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe's origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe's absolute beginning from nothing (from whence there was nothing but God). This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1.1! The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing (non-existence, all by itself) are exactly zero. Being cannot come from nonbeing; there's no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this "absurd" - a scientific (real) impossibility.

Second, believers reject the claim "Everything that exists has a cause" and affirm "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." To say "Everything needs a cause" would necessarily exclude an uncaused God. This is "question begging" (assuming what needs to be proved). It's like presuming that since all reality is physical (which can't be demonstrated), a nonphysical God cannot exist.

Third, why think everything needs a cause, since an uncaused entity is logical and intelligible? Through the centuries, many believed that the universe didn't need a cause; it was self-existent. They thought a beginningless/uncaused universe wasn't illogical or impossible. But now that contemporary cosmology points to the universe's beginning and an external cause, skeptics insist everything (in nature) needs a cause after all!

Fourth, a good number of uncaused things do exist. Logical laws are real; we can't think coherently without using them (e.g., the law of identity, X = X, tells you: "This book is this book"). Moral laws or virtues (love, justice) are real. But none of these began to exist. They are eternal and uncaused (being in God's mind).

Fifth, the question "Who made God?" commits the category fallacy. To say that all things, even God, must be caused is incoherent - like the question "How does the color green taste?" Why fault God for being uncaused? When we rephrase the question to say, "What caused the self-existent, uncaused God, who is by definition unmade, to exist?" the answer is obvious.

[foreversaved]

Sigh. You should read at least the paragraph surrounding it before you write stuff about it...

The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well use. world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Indian's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

There's nothing in that paragraph that overturns these 5 points that I could see. We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature and no hard evidence of something from nothing or something coming into being without a cause. Shouldn't we go with the evidence? It seems this overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is more plausible than something coming into being without a cause that is devoid of any evidence.

"It may just as well use 'world' as God" - the reason why this statement makes no sense is because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects of nature, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. The world is 4.54 billion years and nature existed before then so nature is its cause. There is no scientific dispute about this fact.

The statement "there is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause" is nonsensical. We have a plethora of evidence observing the expansion of the universe to the point of the formation of earth. Non-existence can't cause anything to come into being. It doesn't exist. To believe something can come from nothing is a delusion and "poverty of our imagination" to cling to such a delusion. Puff the magic dragon "come into being" without a cause is morally bankrupt because it ascribes anything without a cause arbitrarily and what is arbitrary is morally decrepit.

The delusion "no reason to suppose the world had a beginning at all" flies in the face of science that determines the age of the earth to be 4.54 billion years old. It did not always exist, nor did it exist 10 billion years ago. The elements of the universe formed to bring the world into existence. Who believes otherwise?

A tortoise or an elephant are part of nature so they would not be uncreated before time and space. A tortoise was born through procreation. The regression of these cause and effects for reasons cited above could not have continued forever in the past.

Therefore, we can conclude infinite regress or infinity of the past is a delusion. It's a failure of your imagination to NOT see time and space coming into being causally.

[foreversaved]

The reason the quote is out of context is because Russell's explanation is not being treated in the context he provided. Russell is saying he doesn't give a shit about your made up reason of how things began.

First Point: Yes Troy, science does say that the OBSERVABLE universe has a 'beginning'. But that's the crux: observable universe. It's the beginning for us because that's as far back as we can see. Until a way could be devised to "see further" beyond the observable universe, which may or not be possible, then we cannot make any claims one way or another what is before or beyond or if that is even required. Many people take it on faith that it is the FSM. It doesn't mean they are right. Please see Russell's Teapot for an explanation why I don't care.

Second Point: I really don't care what "believers" believe because not believing what they believe would cause their belief to not be believed. Contradiction of proof by authority is not a proof by contradiction. Again, see Russell's Teapot.

Third Point: OBSERVABLE universe. Once again, beyond that we don't have a clue until we get more DATA. No data, no evidence, no definitive answer. You can theorize all you want but until you can test it, it ain't science. I think an uncaused entity is illogical and unintelligible. But I have no proof one way or another. Again, see Russell's Teapot.

Fourth Point: If you state that uncaused things do exist, there is nothing that stops someone from assuming that the big bang is the original cause. If you can arbitrarily stop infinite regress, you can arbitrarily stop it any point when cause is no longer observable. I could take it on faith that is is the big bang. You choose to make it Jebus. Also uncaused absolute moral laws.... like slavery being perfectly okay? Like the wearing of spandex and silk warranting death? Whatever... By the way, predicate logic is internally incomplete... please again see the works of Bertrand Russell. If you can't think of an example where application of an identity law results in a paradox, you are lacking sufficient imagination.

Fifth point: Yes there is a category fallacy. He cannot be claimed to be the prime generator in a scientific discussion as he is not observable. Whether he does or not, please once again see Russell's Teapot.

Lastly: For all we know, there are other big bangs that have happened so far away that we cannot yet see them. And they could even possibly start to cross over into our universe at some point.... A circle does not have a beginning or end, you just keep going around. It doesn't need a beginning or an end. In fact, having a beginning or an end would cause it to no longer be a circle. Perhaps the universe it like that too. Or not. I find that a lot more interesting than taking it on faith that Pi is 3.
​Russell's comment is being treated in the context in which it is given. He was quoted and the reason was given why his statement made no sense. Therefore his comment is a nonsensical made up reason. We have evidence for causation, no evidence otherwise. Therefore, everything in nature has a cause. Nothing just pops into existence from nothing. That violates the laws of thermodynamics and science itself.

First Point: You made the claim only what is observable can be true. There are different ways of observing not solely with just your eyes. Since the universe always abides in cause and effect, you don't need to know all things going back into the past to know the universe needs a cause. Not many people believe in your FSM because it fails to stand up to even other faiths. That which is flying, spaghetti or monster has the attributes of the physical, but God is not physical as He meets the attributes of existing outside of time and space. I am also of the view if God exists He is personal and accessible because He can't be less than us. Therefore, the only faiths that are accessible are Christianity, Hinduism and Islam; that is, they are large enough to be deemed accessible. Less than 1% of 1% of the population believe in FSM. And since God does not contradict Himself, even if you knew nothing else, you would know Christianity has to be true because the god of Hinduism is said to be amoral (below our own morality) and reincarnation never effectively deals with sin. Islam fails because it has no evidence six centuries later Muhammad in a cave claiming Jesus never died on the cross. Both faiths are further illogical because salvation is not by works lest any man should boast.

Second Point: Russell's teapot applies to atheism so it is wrong to have a doublestandard. The burden falls on both parties making their claims. Theists provide evidence as we have seen since nature always has a cause, and therefore, nature can't just come into being all by itself from nothing. Non-existence can't cause anything, and something can't come into being before whence there was nothing. That's goofy. You have attempted to set up atheism as unfalsifiable, but that is just a delusion. You could prove theism false if you could prove how something could come into being from nothing. Nobody has ever been able to do so. So I would be illogical to reject theism on the basis you still can't disprove it.

Third Point: The data that you demand is that you must be God, knowing all things, to know if God exists. That's illogical since you are not God. It is enough to know the data of trillions of cause and effects in nature are an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Though you don't know everything you do know this. This is science observing cause and effect. You never stated why the uncaused entity is illogical. Several examples of uncaused attributes were given. These are laws of life, virtues and the law of identity. You don't need to theorize. Nature could not always have existed because if it did, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Fourth Point: A big bang explosion is set off by the fire starter. Where do you see in nature something exploding all by itself without a cause? That goes against science. Infinite regress is not arbitrarily excluded. As was said, infinite regress is impossible because if it were true, by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, infinite regress is false; nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

It is doubleminded to say slavery is ok when in your natural only world it exists as being part of nature as ok. So it is ok for your faith but not for others? Whereas in Christianity and the Bible it is not ok. God never condones slavery in the Bible. You just misread it. Moral laws of God are part of His nature. He didn't create them. They are Him. There is no paradox in the identity law at least none you could show.

Fifth Point: You're making the mistake of limiting your imagination by only what you can see with your physical eyes. But if you were blind, you could see cause and effect too. Therefore, you continue to commit to the category fallacy. We are more than just our body, we also have a spirit and a soul (Heb. 4.12). Your body gives you world-consciousness with its 5 senses. Your soul (outer man) provides you with self-consciousness with the functions of mind (reasoning), will (volition), and emotion (affection, desire, sensing and feeling). Your spirit gives you the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. The spirit of man provides us with God-consciousness. Most people believe God exists; but most people worship the wrong deity.

Sixth Point: It is irrelevant if there are other universes or other big bangs, because they are all subject to cause and effect. Hence, Romans 1.20 says you know God exists just by observing nature. As for you circle theory it is flawed because the circle itself has a cause. What circles ever just started up all by themselves? When you go around a circle, starting at point A at time t, a certain amount of time has passed when you come around so it is not a circle after all in the sense you believe. You take it on faith something from nothing or something all by itself without a cause, but the evidence as we have seen shows that not to be possible because the universe always is subject to cause and effect. That is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If God exists He wouldn't hold it against you for believing in Him because the evidence is strong. But He would hold it against you if you didn't believe in Him because you had nothing to back up your ideas.

At the end of the day to believe the big bang is all there is is morally bankrupt because it flies in the face of nature always having cause. Hence, your very faith in atheism is morally decrepit, because nothing really matters since the same verdict is the same for everyone no matter how evil you become. While this is true of naturalism and atheists, it is not true for theists, because we consider that evil.

[foreversaved]

First point: I made the claim that you can only verify observable data. Observable doesn't mean you have to your eyes. That's science.

Second point: Russell's teapot is saying that an unobservable magic teapot orbiting mars has absolutely no effect on him whatsoever. The wackos who try to force that view on him are something else entirely.

Third point:I never said God did or did not exist. He's just a magic teapot for all I care.

Fourth point: Again, Russell's teapot --> I don't care that you want you me to believe in your magic little buddy.

Fifth point: About lack of imagination... please try to provide an example where the application of an identity law is paradoxical. Because if you can, you contradict your own argument. If you can't, well that's something else....

Also Slavery:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Fuck your God for condoning slavery.

Sixth Point: The circle example is a response to your claim that logical constructs do not need a creation. Hence the Platonic ideal of a circle is eternal. It has neither beginning nor end. Ohhhhhmmmm.

Lastly: Don't care. Russell's teapot again.
First Point: Science does verify what is observable. God is verified to exist. I am glad you agree it is not just what you see with your eyes. So that's science - what is evidenced. What is evidenced is we observe trillions of cause and effects in nature and no hard evidence of something from nothing. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is what we refer to as God. Now you know. Inherently, we all know this, but some prefer to shut their minds down due to their preference for their self-centered and selfish nature that pretends they are unaccountable.

Second Point: An unobservable magical teapot. This claim comes with no evidence so it is like anyone can say anything. I only care about what is evidenced. What is evidenced is the uncreated Creator that brought nature into being. You've admitted you could care less about the evidence, but at the end of the day, all delusions eventually break down and the consequences must be administered, for God is righteous, holy and just. We put people in jail for life for just this reason.

Third Point: You are saying now you are not taking the position that God does or does not exist which would no longer make you Atheist but Agnostic. Of course, being Agnostic is no different than what Jesus said, If you are not for Him, you are against Him. "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12.30). You could care less whether He exists or not or whether you have the right interpretation of God or not. You're free to believe what you wish, but you are "without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). "That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1.19-22). The evidence as we have seen proves God exists, therefore, you harbor a delusion. Since a mind is needed to create a mind, God of the Bible trumps your teapot and your FSM or whatever else you want to place up against God. Each time you lose.

Fourth Point: The point of Russell's teapot is not that he doesn't care, but that there is no evidence for the teapot. Whereas the evidence was given to you for the uncreated Creator. Now the question is, Where does God reveal Himself since we know He exists? As before, not in accessible Hinduism or Islam, only Christianity, because the first two accessible faiths have been proven false.

Fifth Point: The burden is not on me to show the identity law is paradoxical, it is on you since you make the claim.

Sixth Point: Logical constructs do need a creation. I never said otherwise. A circle that always exist is subject to cause and effect so it could not always have existed. Moreover, there can be true circle in your sense because when you come around the circle it is no longer at time t but t + [the time it took to go around]. And it can be said that point is not the same point in reality for it is at another time. The circle needs a cause because we have evidence for causation only. While it may have no end, it needs a beginning because it could not always have existed. The you that you are now is the only now that you are you, so no circle.

Seventh Point: Since we are all sinners, sin leads to death and the second death which eternally separates you from God, and you can never cease to exist being made in God's image, then the only solution is Hell. This is enabling free choice. Free will is not truly free if you don't have the free choice to be with God or to be eternally separated in Hell where the worm never dies and no rest day or night. This is the maximally great God for not to have this free choice is lesser or even unholy.

Eighth Point: God is not condoning slavery, but He is putting up with it for a time. For example, Israel was enslaved 430 years then the 10 plagues finally released Israel from Egyptian slavery. He is reconciling all things for the good of those that love Him. If God's ultimate is slavery as you suggest then why would God release Israel from slavery? “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Ex. 21.16).

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1.8-10). "He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord" (Phil. 1.16).

"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19.8). God allowed slavery in the OT for a time due to the hardness of peoples' hearts. Also, Israel would not have survived as a nation to bring in the Messiah without these laws. Back then slavery was the common staple of all nations. It was a barbaric time. If we could transport you back into that time it would give you an appreciation of what life was like and why slavery was part of the system back then. All is history now. The Messiah a Jew was born. God worked within a fallen system. As Israel was surrounded by nations that practiced slavery, Israel did also, but with much more compassion as you quoted those verses. Today, slavery is outlawed. We are in the dispensation of grace.

Nineth Point: Russell cared, albeit selfishly, but he was delusional. You don't care which is fine, but since God is proven to not care is delusional and selfish. God gives you this free choice. But you would not be allowed in the New City and New Earth because you would be unhealthy to be around. A loving God would never allow that.

Good talk.