Who Made God

By Atheist Answers (Facebook Page)

A question a skeptic will normally ask is: "Who made GOD?".

The skeptics question normally rests on the faulty premise of infinite regression.

So the skeptics question will go something like: "who made GOD, who then made GOD, who then made GOD?" etc...

But the issue of infinite regression is equally as much a problem for the materialistic atheist world view, I could ask:

"which universe made the universe, which made the universe, which made the universe?" etc...

So both world views must have a starting point if they are to avoid infinite regression.

Philosophically and within a deductive argument it looks like this:

P1: Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing - or every effect must have a cause)...
P2: So because there is anything, there has always been something...
Conclusion: Therefore something is eternal (eternity has chronos but not kairos)...


REVIEW OF PREMISES

Premise 1 Possible contention: "Premise 1 is false, something can come from nothing".Answer: There are so many problems with this argument, but I will just present two.Firstly if something can come from nothing we could not do science or rely on rationality, as we could have cats, pianos, memories, thoughts, people, strange beings, different laws of physics etc all appearing out of no where with no causal reason. That is because nothing has no characteristics, properties, potentialities and no restrictions. To do basic science the etiological (study of causation) principle is that an effect can never be greater than it's cause (or you have something from nothing unaccounted for).Secondly, if our universe came from nothing, that means the laws of logic came from nothing. Now that means we could have universes (or anything) appearing into existence that do not obey the laws of logic, and if the laws of logic are not universal they can not be by their very nature true. Which ultimately means we can know nothing, and if that is the case why is the skeptic arguing for a rational World View.


Premise 2

Because every effect needs a cause, and every effect can never be greater than it's cause; that means the ultimate eternal uncaused cause has to be maximal in all properties and thus immutable (unchanging) and never under effect in it's outward constitution (if it was ever under a new type of effect for which it has no properties, then that effect would need explaining outside it's self, and thus it could not be the ultimate uncaused cause of all reality).


Conclusion

Possible contention: "The universe is the eternal something of premise 3".Answer: Firstly from a logical perspective this is false because what ever is eternal would have to be timeless; but the universe is time-bound. Something which is material and time-bound can not be eternal and timeless. The universe logically could not have an infinite amount of past events for example. An infinite amount of past events is logically and mathematically absurd: one example, what is infinity minus a million? the same as infinity minus 10. In math this is not feasible, so an infinite regress of past events is both logically and mathematically absurd...There are also 5 scientific reasons why cosmologist will say the universe had to have a beginning. I will not list all 5 for sake of space but one of them for example is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is entropy. Entropy shows us the quality of energy is winding down all the time (so at one time it was fully wound up), that is why given enough time the universe will go into heat death...

************************************************************************************************************

SECOND ARGUMENT FOR WHAT THE ETERNAL CAUSE MUST BE FROM THE CONCLUSION IN THE FIRST ARGUMENT


Now as I have already pointed out, the universe is finite and infinite regression is impossible.So what ever properties the eternal something has they will not be the same properties of our finite universe (or the problem will go into infinite regress again).Therefore the eternal something based on what we know must be a timeless, space-less, immutable (unchanging), super natural, immaterial Being.This is explained in more detail below...

(1) The finite universe is: Time bound...Therefore the cause must be: Timeless (eternal)

(2) The finite universe is: Space bound...Therefore the cause must be: Space-less (immaterial)

(3) The finite universe is: Mutable...Therefore the cause must be: Immutable (it has to be the uncaused cause; because every effect has a cause, therefore it must never be under effect, and for this it must contain all maximal properties within it's self)

(4) The finite universe is: Material & Natural (uniform physics)...Therefore the cause must be: A Supernatural (not bound to physical laws - this does not include metaphysical laws, like the laws of logic) immaterial Being-(4A) This is because in order to have a rational universe, the cause must have both a rational and logical nature; yet equally the cause must also be able to make contingent choices. If the cause could not do contingent things, and rather operated by some sort of mechanical internal process, then it would go into infinite regress which is logically absurd (and we have the same problem as before).-(4B) This is because based on what we know philosophically only two candidates could possibly fit the requirements above for the cause of the universe; and they are an abstract object like a number or a disembodied mind (as mind and abstract objects are heavily argued as being immaterial in philosophy). Now abstract objects have no causal agency, so by exclusion to the alternative the only possible candidate is a disembodied mind (also as our own personal experiences inform us; the mind has Causal Agency).


"Astronomers have now found they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in act of creation in which it can trace the seeds of every star, planet and living thing in this cosmos and on the earth and they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can not hope to discover, that there are what I or any one would call super natural forces at work is now a scientifically proven fact" - Robert Jastrow


"Astronomy leads us to a unique event a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life and one which has a underlying one might say super natural plan" - Arno Penzias (the man who co-discovered the Radiation Echo)...


"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly super natural" - Arthur Eddington (thee contemporary of Einstein who was an expert in General Relativity)


"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Super Intellect has monkied with physics, chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" - Sir Fred Hoyle