Who created God?

One of the most famous arguments for the existence of God is the “argument from design”. The idea is simple. You are walking in the middle of a forest and on the ground you find a perfectly functioning mechanical watch. What is more rational to believe, that the watch was designed and created by an intelligent being, or that the watch formed through some random trial and error processes? The answer, made obvious by the example, is that the watch was created by an intelligent creator. Therefore, since the universe is designed and ordered (it has laws, mathematical truths, etc), it is more rational to believe that it was created by an intelligent being, which we name God.

The atheist is often quick to counter the argument with the question “Well, who created God”? The theist then, unable to answer the question, often tries to explain where God could have originated from. By doing so, the crust of the argument for God is sidelines and the discussion goes nowhere. How should we answer that question? Here is my crack at it.

First, the question, as it is stated, seems to me quite irrelevant. In the example of the watch in the forest, when we try to identify the watch’s maker, it makes no sense to ask who created the watchmaker. It is not a relevant question. In other words, I don’t have to be sure of who created God to be sure that the universe was created by God. Maybe God was created by other God’s, maybe He wasn’t created, maybe things in His universe don’t get created. It might be an interesting question on its own and it can certainly be discussed, however as far as the question at hand is concerned, it adds very little value.

To be fair though, any atheist who knows what he is talking about probably isn’t really asking about the identity of the God’s creator. I think he may be posing a more relevant question that can be better stated as follows. If the universe is complex and if that is the reason we believe it is designed, does it not make sense to say that God was also designed, since He too is complex. And if he too is designed, does it not imply that his designer was also designed, and so on. Therefore, the atheist believes, we are stuck in an infinite regress, which is philosophically impossible. He reasons that we must stop somewhere and that somewhere should be the universe because that is all we can observe.

The problem with the atheists reasoning is that he takes the rules that are applied to the universe and applies them to God. He says if the universe is complex and if that is the reason we believe it is designed, it make sense to say that God was also designed, since He too is complex. However, it does not follow as the atheist expects. We do not believe that the universe is designed only because it is complex. We believe it is designed because it is complex AND because in this universe complex things are designed. If we were in a universe where things were complex without being designed, we would not require that the universe be designed. Theists, based on what we know from science, claim that in our universe, things that appear to be designed are most likely designed. Is God designed? Is God created? We cannot say one way or the other based on what we observe in this life. He’s not in our universe; I’m not sure what the rules are in His realm. In fact, it is more likely that the same rules do not apply and that God does not need to be designed. The creator of the laws that require complexity to be designed is himself not subject to those same laws. Why would he be? He created them.

Therefore, if the atheist is to argue against the argument from design he must show why the universe, like God, is exempt from the rules that we so constantly observe. Otherwise, he must show that in fact it is more probable to have complexity arise without intelligence. This latter option brings me to my last point, which also turns out to be the atheist’s last resort.

Evolution seems to be the atheist’s last line of defense. In evolution, the atheist has a seemingly random process creating incredibly complex designs. But I’m afraid he has come up short once again. In order to avoid an evolution debate, let me assume that evolution from cell to human is true. Even if I concede that much, there are still huge information gaps that atheists cannot even fill with their imaginations. For example, who created the first cell? Yes there are lots of maybes, like maybe there was a primordial soup with lots of this and that. But if scientists with all their intelligence and all the funding they receive can’t create a single cell in the laboratory from scratch, how much less can we expect them to explain how a random process could have generate one. And what about the laws of physics? They are designed and ordered. Who created those? Evolution does not even touch on that subject. What about evolution itself. If it does exist, it is one heck of an intelligent process. Who designed it? Who created the laws that support it – like the uniformity of nature, laws of matter and thermodynamics? Ultimately, even with evolution conceded for free we are still stuck with intelligent design as the best explanation.

So who created God? I’ll make you a deal. Let us figure out who created us first. Let us get to know him better and understand His purposes for why He made us and what He wants from us. And then, once we have reached that step, I’m sure He will entertain us with some thoughts about His universe and how things work where He is.

A Relationship with the Unseen

In my Christian walk, I have often been frustrated with trying to communicate with Jesus or spend quality time with Him. Christians talk about having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and “walking humbly with our God”. But how is it really possible to have a relationship with someone that we cannot even see, hear, smell, touch or taste. To add to the difficulty, if Christianity is true, a mediocre, wishy washy, not sure how it works, relationship with Jesus will not do. Our relationship with Him not only has to equal the relationships we have with people in the ‘seen’ realm, but it has to surpass them and it must do so in the unseen realm. In other words, we must at least relate with Jesus that we do not see, better than with the people that we do.

If I think about it for a little bit, this task seems quite impossible. Does the bible really imply that I can communicate and relate better with someone that I cannot hear or see as opposed to someone that I can? That sounds paradoxical. Is not “seeing people” and “hearing people” what relationships are all about? Actually, I think that’s really the question here. And to answer it, I think, we need to analyze more specifically the role that the senses play in having a relationship. In that context I can phrase the question in another way. Are the senses part of the goal that is a relationship or are they part of the means to building a relationship? If they are only the means, then it is possible that there are even better means. If they are the goal in themselves, then we are in trouble.

With just a little bit of insight, it will quickly become evident that the senses themselves are only the means to a relationship. Let’s take hearing for example. When a husband hears his wife talking to him, he is not really after the sound that is entering his ears, he is much more interested in what she is trying to say, in what she wants, in what she is thinking. To prove that, let us say that his wife is actually a very well designed android that has no feelings or thoughts but looks and sounds very much like a human with feelings and thoughts. That android can say whatever it is programmed to say and it can sound very good, but ultimately, no relationship can exists. Its just sound. The husband does not care at all what the “wife” is saying because he knows there is no essence to her words. In reality then physically hearing what his wife has to say isn’t that important after all. It is knowing what is behind the sounds that matter. It is intimately knowing his wife, her thoughts, her wants and her feelings that is important, not the physical means by which that knowledge is made known.

Let’s move on to another sense, the sense of seeing or sight. When we love someone we say we want to ‘see’ them. What exactly does that mean? Is it that we want to see how well they are looking or is it more that we want them to be in our presence? To answer that, let me give another example. Would a mother be satisfied seeing her son on a high definition live video screen all her life? Would she not trade the world to also see him face to face and be with him? Why would that be so? I mean ultimately, in the both situations, the light beams entering her eyes are very much the same. I think it’s because really, she hardly cares how he looks; she just wants him to be where she is. She wants to share in his circumstances and just wants to be with him and be near him. She wants him to be in her presence. ‘Seeing’ someone is much more about being (sharing circumstances, etc.) with them with them than it actually is about seeing them.

Now don’t get me wrong. The seeing and the hearing are beautiful things as well. The means are beautiful, but they are still the means. Giving flowers to the girl of your dreams is a beautiful thing, but the end goal is winning her heart and expressing your love. Walking down the aisle is the beautiful thing, but the end goal is the man at the end it.

Now we come back to Christianity. Jesus asks us to have a relationship with him; one that is even better than the relationship we have with the people around us. We have shown so far that “seeing and hearing” are not really the essence of relationship. Instead, in the case of seeing and hearing at least, it seems that knowing the other person and being in their presence are much more valuable.

For the experienced Christian, I believe I have made my point already. Being with Jesus and knowing him are well established biblical principles. Jesus promised us that He “will be with us until the very end of the age.” He is with us now. He is sharing in our circumstances. He is near us. We don’t have to see him. He is here. There is not much sense asking “let me see you”, since the main point of seeing as we have shown is being with the person and to share something, anything, with them. Also, knowing Jesus is paramount to the faith; knowing what he wants from us, what pleases Him and what displeases Him. There is no sense is saying “speak to me Oh lord” and to expect some sort of audible response. Everything we need to know about God, about his wants and desires has already been made known to us and is available through His Word.

Therefore, it is very possible to have a relationship with the unseen. One just can’t use the same means. In the seen realm, we use light and sound. In the unseen realm, we use faith in Jesus and His promises and the study and reading of His Word. And ultimately, His promises and His Word express Him infinitely better than light and sound could ever express another person.