Then Who Made God? Part I of III

Revisiting a Classic Argument
Against God's existence


By Brian D. Wilson

One of the most popular arguments still hanging on the lips of atheists today is one I like to call the “Who made God?” argument. I came up against it years ago as a new Christian going to community college. I am in the quad talking to a classmate about God’s promise to Abraham in the book of Genesis when he asks me, “Yeah, but does the idea of God really make any sense in the first place?” “Of course” I say, “It makes a lot of sense. How else are you going to explain the fact that the universe is here. It certainly didn’t cause itself. If that were true then the universe would be the cause itself before it existed, and that makes no sense.” Just then my classmate’s friend interrupts the conversation with a sinister grin, “Well, if everything needs a cause to exist, then who made God?” I must admit that he stumped me those many years ago. I had no answer for him.

Now days I am much more informed about this still common rebuttal. Ironically those who offer this argument think its a revelation, the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, there is nothing new or clever about it. The argument goes back at least 2,500 years to the time of Aristotle, if not more.

More importantly, this tired old argument was refuted ages ago by generations of Church Fathers, Medieval scholastics, and Reformation theologians long before that young atheist kid got his chuckles from slaying a “Jesus Freak” like me. In retrospect with years of Science and Philosophy under my belt this argument, to use a car analogy, looks like a broken down model T Ford!

No really, atheists who insist on still using it remind me of that villager you always see on Star Trek who encounters Captain Kirk and his away team. You know the guy. The team goes down to the surface of a planet inhabited by people thousands of years behind Star Fleet technologically. The group starts looking around when suddenly the villager comes out of the bushes packing a flintlock pistol and says, “Aha strangers! Look at me I’ve got the latest weapon. Now come with me and you won't be hurt.” Of course you know that Kirk doesn’t have the heart to tell him that he could call up to Spok any time and vaporize the entire planet. But we are jumping ahead of ourselves. Let’s examine what the Who Made God argument looks like in a little more detail.

It is often some young, pimple faced college kid carrying around a copy of Atlas Shrugged under his arm, full of angst against organized religion who most often uses the Who Made God argument. When posing this question he believes he has caught the Christian in a self-refuting argument. A self-refuting argument is one in which the arguer has said something which completely contradicts something else he has said in the same argument.

Imagine that a self-refuting argument is like a defective gun, and when a person picks it up to shoot his opponent it blows up in his face. It is like the arguer’s words cave in on themselves. For example, suppose a man says, “You know what? I cannot speak a word of English!” Anyone can see that if he is at least speaking a little English, the man’s argument is self contradictory, and therfore refutes itself. It shoots it self. That is self-refutation.

Here is how the atheist sees the Christian’s argument:


Premise one: What ever exists must have a cause.
Premise two: The universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe needs a cause to exist, and that cause is God.


Now when the atheist thinks that anything remotely resembling the above argument has been stated by the Christian he springs his trap. “Aha! God too needs a cause, for don’t you say that what ever exists requires a cause. And isn’t it true that God exists. By your own argument then God requires a pre-existing cause, but what created Him? Since He’s created isn’t it true that He is really not so different than any of us. The Greeks believed that Zeus was created, I am created, and the Earth is created. So why is your God any more deserving of worship than Zeus, the Earth, Brahma, a dog, or my friend Steve? Better yet, He really doesn’t exist does He!”

There is a problem however, historically the great philosophers and theologians of the Church never said, “What ever exists must have a cause.” Rather their argument in the first premise has always been, “What ever BEGINS to exist must have a cause.” In other words, only those things which have an initial beginning in space and time require a cause for their existence. God does not require a cause because he does not begin to exist.

Besides the Christian’s objection has never been over the idea that something can exist eternally. After all, hasn’t the Christian always argued that God is eternal? The Christian’s problem, rather, is with the idea that the one eternal thing necessary to get the whole show started is the universe.

Now I can just hear the retort, “You’re just engaging in semantics to confuse the issue! Replacing exist with begins to exist is irrelevant.” I beg to differ. The difference between these two arguments is immense, real, not mere semantics. Consider, if the atheist is saying the Christian position is wrong because eternal things can’t exist, then the atheist must forever surrender his idea that the universe is eternal, right?

The atheist has argued himself into a corner. Stop and think. Hasn’t his reply to the Christian always been, “We do not need to provide an explanation for the cause of the universe because it has always been here!”? So if it is possible for a universe to have always existed, they why is it impossible for a God to have always existed? Atheists from Quentin Smith and Kai Neilson, to Sam Harris and Michael Shermer have made the claim of an eternal universe their battle cry.

At this point two rebutals are possible to the atheist. Since most atheists are arguing on the basis of the impossibility that something can be beginningless you say, "You don't really believe that the idea of eternality is irrational, because you believe that the universe itself is eternal." Therefore until you come up with an argument against God's existence other than, 'the eternal is irratonal' you have not refuted the idea that God created the universe."

Second you must ask, "What specific rule of rationality or logic is violated by stating that something is eternal?" The three governing laws of logic, the ruiles of identity, non-contradiction, and exluded middle, are certainly not violated in any way. Always bring the atheist back to the fact that they don't really believe what they are saying regarding their belief that the beginningless is irrational.

You may also choose to turn the same argument back on the atheist. Since everything that exists needs a cause, just as you say, and the universe exists, therefore it needs a cause. But you says that the universe doesn’t need a cause? So which is it? The universe either exists or it doesn't exist. If it exists, it requires a cause, if it doesn't, it needs no causal explanation. I know maybe atheists don’t exist!

There is also one word of caution here. You must remember, we are not here arguing from the offensive that God exists. Instead we are arguing why the Who made God? argument is ineffective in proving that God does not exist. We are in essence saying, "If you are going to prove that God does not exist you are going to have to come up with a better argument than this one, because it doesn't work. This argument is terrible and if you continue to use it your position will be compromised as it has in our conversation. After all I am only looking out for your best interests."

At any rate notice that we are right back where we started. In the end every Christian should be saying to our atheist friends, "If you demand from me a rational explanation for how it is possible for something to have always existed, then I must demand from you the same explanation."

In order to be intellectually honest in this debate both sides must admit that they believe something eternal exists. The real argument is over which thing possesses the characteristic of being eternal. Is it the Universe or is it God?

This unfortunately is where the argument gets really bad for the atheist. There are two devastating arguments, and by no means the only ones, for why the universe cannot possibly be that eternally existing thing we are searching for.

This ends part one. Please return for part two where I will explain the first of these arguments in detail. Learn the astronomical evidence. Then take a look at part three where I will teach you a powerful philosophical rebuttal to this common attack on Christianity. It is a response all Christians can use with only a little practice, and believe me, it is very effective. I have seen it do wonders. It stops your opponent in his tracks allowing you ro respond as a winsome and attractive embassador for Christ. Hopefully those of you who have followed my work know that this is a strong ethical principal I believe all Christians should strive for. So stay tuned!