Who created God?

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Improved readability of first paragraph)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''"Who created God?"''' is the most concise answer to the [[cosmological argument|first-cause]] argument.  When theists ask "Who created the [[universe]]?  It must have been [[God]]", this question is a way of turning the original question back on itself.
+
When theists ask "Who created the [[universe]]?  It must have been [[God]]", asking '''"Who created God?"''' is a way of turning the original question back on itself. This is the most concise answer to the [[cosmological argument|first-cause]] argument. 
  
 
Asking about God's creator is a way of drawing attention to the fact that inventing a god is not an explanation for the existence of the universe, or of unexplained features within the universe.  On the contrary, it fails as an explanation because it does nothing more than push the question of origin up a level, and on this new level the same problem exists.
 
Asking about God's creator is a way of drawing attention to the fact that inventing a god is not an explanation for the existence of the universe, or of unexplained features within the universe.  On the contrary, it fails as an explanation because it does nothing more than push the question of origin up a level, and on this new level the same problem exists.

Revision as of 09:56, 12 November 2006

When theists ask "Who created the universe? It must have been God", asking "Who created God?" is a way of turning the original question back on itself. This is the most concise answer to the first-cause argument.

Asking about God's creator is a way of drawing attention to the fact that inventing a god is not an explanation for the existence of the universe, or of unexplained features within the universe. On the contrary, it fails as an explanation because it does nothing more than push the question of origin up a level, and on this new level the same problem exists.

In a more general way, this is a template for a generalized technique of turning theistic questions about the world around on the God that they use to explain it. It can also be used as a response to arguments such as:

  • The natural-law argument ("If the order of natural laws can only be explained by a creator, then what explains the order of the creator?")
  • Irreducible complexity ("If complexity can only be explained by an intelligent designer, then how do you explain the complexity of the designer?")
  • Morality, as in the Euthyphro dilemma ("If God is needed to tell us what is right and wrong, then on what basis does God decide what is right and wrong?")

Apologetic responses

A common theistic response is that God is specially exempt from the rules they have invented, because he exists "outside of time" and so is not subject to rules such as "everything requires a creator."

This argument is ultimately self-defeating. If there exist things which are not subject to the rules, then the rules are not really rules, but more like guidelines. If theists grant that some things do not need a creator, then we may as well simplify and say that it is the universe, or some other ungodlike entity, that requires no creator.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox