God created everything, but nothing created god?

I have found myself in the middle of a battle of logic and sheer force of will. The battle is between myself and a creationist friend of mine. The battlefield? ‘Creation’ of the universe.

Her position is one of ‘In the beginning there was God’. My immediate comment was, you have a false premise. First of all she is assuming that Gods exist at all. Then she is furthermore assuming that if Gods exist there is only one, and it happens to be the one that she already believes in. Even if I were to concede these points, which Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett would suggest strongly against, then there is still the issue of “if the Universe needs a ‘creator’, then why does the creator not need a creator”? The idea being, like the watchmaker analogy, an object of sufficient complexity shows hallmarks of being created and not of occurring naturally. But, unfortunately, the only examples of things coming into existence are through natural processes. Anything else would be supernatural and, as I’m sure you are all aware, we have absolutely zero evidence of anything that exists in supernature.

New Chandra observations have been used to make the first detection of X-ray emission from young stars with masses similar to our Sun outside our Milky Way galaxy. The Chandra observations of these low-mass stars were made of the region known as the

The knee jerk reaction I get from her, and from most of the research I have done into this argument, is “God doesn’t need a creator, he’s god”. What a useless explanation. Why would God possess some ability to be eternal (though once you think about something existing outside of existence all of this gets REALLY weak) yet another object (lets say the Universe, multiverse, tiny-verse, micros-verse whatever you like) not be able to possess that same characteristic?

Besides just imbuing god with that ability because it makes the complex questions of ‘what created god’ and ‘where did god come from’, go away. This of course is really just an intellectually dishonest way of pushing the problem back a step. i.e. “What made earth -> what made the solar system -> what made the universe -> what made god -> what made that maker, etc.” Pushing the question out one level adds NO explanatory power to the claim of God dunnit.

The other thing that seems to not get addressed in this kind of conversation, seemingly from an attempt to be polite about origins is that there is NO evidence for the God claim to begin with. I’m sure getting back to this fundamental argument would make Sam or Daniel happy. So, what this means is that, logically, if one were to accept that God could be ‘non-created’ or ‘self-created’ then so could anything else. Unless the religious among us would like to take a swing at  explaining gods origins to at LEAST the level of understanding we have about the big bang, we really don’t have much to talk about. The fact that we just don’t know yet where this all came from is fascinating, exciting and amazing. The fact that we are learning more about it everyday and are furthering our explanations, making accurate prediction and have developed models that work out perfectly with the Universe we observe around us makes me giddy. We may not know yet, but we should refuse to accept a God of the gaps argument for creation and get busy looking for actual answers, whatever those may turn out to be.

About Freeligion

Michael Cain is an IT Director by day and and by night is a fearless fighter of falsehoods and fiction fenced as fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: