How to answer a tough internet challenge: Who Created God

by on May 25, 2023

I received an interesting letter in response to my post “Who Created God?” As I began to fashion a reply I saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate to others how to answer what appears to be a very intellectual comment.

I will begin by outlining what I look for in a response. All of these strategies work when engaged in a conversation. My first pass through the letter, I look for arguments. An argument is a conclusion supported by one or more premises (support for the conclusion). Questions I ask myself as I look at the letter are 1) does the writer state conclusions with or without support (an opinion), 2) does the conclusion follow from the premises, and 3) even if his argument is valid, does it contain false ideas that I need to contend.

As I go through the following letter I will be pointing out what I think are errors the writer makes in forming his case. I will also ask questions, so that the writer can reply and clarify what he means. Questions are a great tool for one-on-one discussions.

Dear Himangsu Sekhar Pal,

Thanks for posting an interesting answer to the question posed on the web site. I will attempt to answer what I deem relevant to the discussion.

First is the problem of the opening three sentences. You write the following as an answer to who created God:

“Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle.”

Here Himangsu you made some strong claims. I need to begin my reply with some questions. Are you saying it will be easy to establish who created God? Or are you saying it will be easy to establish God is uncreated? How does modern science, which studies the physical, gives us answers for an immaterial God?

I am not certain what God you are alluding to. The God of Christianity is uncreated by definition. We have a satisfactory answer. If there is any explanation to the creation of God then we’re not talking about the God of the Bible. If you are creating your own god then you are certainly entitled to come up with a formula for explaining his or her coming into existence. My post had to do with the God of the Bible and therefore, your efforts are wasted. However, I’ve decided to work through your letter and answer some of your comments to see what else I can discover.

Your next problem comes with this statement:

“Then he [Stephen Hawking] raised the question regarding the origin of these particles, and gave the answer himself. According to quantum theory particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But there the question does not stop. Another question props up regarding the origin of that energy. But when it is said that total energy of the universe is exactly zero, then all is said and done.”

Here you make an assumption, assigning zero to the total energy of the universe. Your motivation for assigning zero is to avoid the infinite regress of explaining where the energy comes from. What is your justification for assigning the total energy of the universe to be exactly zero? It seems you pull the value of zero out of the air.

You write…

“It is almost a common saying that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless?”

Again you assign space, time, and change as zero seemingly without justification. How can space, time, and change be zero? Later you do the very same thing to light. Your explanation for light being assigned zero makes no sense; again another assumption.

Now you make a major metaphysical mistake, stating science has proven something about God. You say,

“Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light.”

What experiment showed God is only light? Where did I miss that scientific discovery? Please site the experiment that proved God is only light. A broad definition of science comes from “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer: “A systematic way of studying nature involving observation, experimenting, and/or reasoning about physical phenomena.” Based on this definition it is impossible for science to provide answers concerning an immaterial being let alone prove God is all light.

Later in your comments you say scientists can say there is no God. Again based on what? Science cannot by direct experimentation, in the physical realm, deny the existence of God.

You continue with your assumptions and assigning things zero:

“So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero.”

Here you arrive at a scientific conclusion that God, an immaterial being, is a zero. Again you are assigning a non-physical being with your imaginary value of zero. How can you say God is zero is a matter of fact? I am still looking for an argument to make your case.

You continue:

“Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!”

According to the Bible, there is not a second separate divine being that is co-eternal with God. Over and over again the Bible affirms there is only one God by nature or essence (Read Isaiah 43-48). However, the Biblical God is a Triune God. A definition of the Trinity comes from the book “The Forgotten Trinity” by Dr. James White: “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The Triune God can exercise the attribute of love, even before creation, by each person loving each other. Some additional attributes of God’s nature is He is all-loving, benevolent, good, compassionate, and merciful.

Then you jump to the conclusion that God is not the creator of the universe and therefore, we shouldn’t revere him. Your comments on the attributes of God do not have anything to do with God being the creator of the universe; it is a non-sequitur. Why does God’s attributes lead you to the conclusion God didn’t create the universe?

Next you write:

“It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. (Book: A History of Western Philosophy, Ch: Plato’s Utopia). Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil.”

Here we see a reproduction of Plato’s, “Euthyphro’s dilemma.” All Bertrand Russell did was to give his twist. The “horns” of the dilemma can be stated this way: 1) if morality or goodness is above God, then He has to obey it and is not sovereign; morality reigns. Or 2) if morality or goodness are expressed through the commands of God, then they are arbitrary; God can say today one thing is good and tomorrow change His mind. If either of these “horns” of the dilemma is true, then either God is not good or sovereign. How does the Christian answer this problem?

The problem is presented with two choices and ignores a third. The answer is found in the third option. Morality is not above or below God but emanates from His very nature or character. In his article on Euthyphro’s dilemma, Greg Koukl says this, “The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.” (Greg Koukl article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236#fn3) The ground for all morality and goodness is found in the nature of God. Therefore, your conclusion that God is beyond good and evil is simply false.

Since you think you’ve established God is beyond good and evil you then reach this conclusion:

“Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.”

Since your premises were false your conclusion is therefore false. You continue with your assumptions and again make God a zero and call Him a no-thing. I am having trouble following how you conclude God is a no-thing. I believe it was Aristotle who once said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” If you are arguing God is nothing, then He doesn’t exist. Are you trying to make a case for a pantheistic god?

Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense, especially, since I have shown your prior premises are false. You are welcome to disagree and I would love to hear your thoughts.

Steve Bruecker

To all who are reading this post, I hope I have made my case and dealt with what many people call a difficult letter. It was my desire to help you improve your ability to contend for the faith. In my next post I will continue my series, “Is God the Author of the Bible?”

{ 10 comments… add one }

Paul Harris May 25, 2011, 12:50 am

God is not good

There is a general misconception about God that He is good, but actually He is not. God is neither good nor evil, He is beyond good and evil. If God is the ultimate being, then that God cannot be good. When we are saying that God is good, we are passing some judgment on God, we are saying that He is good. But by what standard of goodness are we judging him good? From where has it originated? As believers say that their God is the all-thing and everything that was there, therefore this standard of goodness could have originated from God only, and not from any other source, because except that God there was no other source from which it could have originated. So we are judging God good by His own standard of goodness. But this is a dangerous principle. Because if this principle is being followed in other cases also, then there will be complete chaos. Then everybody will start claiming that he should be judged for his action by his own standard only, and not by the standard of other people, society, or state. And he can legitimately claim this, because he will say that God has made man in His own image. So the principle that is followed in case of God should also be followed in case of each and every single human being. Why should there be any deviation from that principle in case of man? Is he not created in God’s own image? So, after killing six million Jews Hitler will claim that he is innocent, because he thought it absolutely necessary to efface their race from the surface of earth, in order to save mankind from future disasters. Therefore by his own standard of goodness and badness he has done nothing wrong.
Therefore the above principle will have to be abandoned and we will have to seek for some other principle. In that case if we say that God is good, then we will have to admit that the standard by means of which we judge God good has not originated from Him, but from some other source. Here there are two possibilities:
1) This standard is prior to God,
2) It is coeternal with, but not originated from, God.
In none of the two cases above, God is the all-thing and everything that can be there. So believers cannot claim that their God is the all-thing and everything that is there, and at the same time claim that He is good.
In one sense it can be said that the creation of the universe was God’s greatest wrongdoing. It was His biggest blunder. Because with this creation came hunger, misery, death, suffering, sorrow, slavery, murder, rape, treason, torture, and what not! Now we cannot undo what God has already done, because it is not in our power to destroy the entire universe. But we can at least destroy the earth; science has given us that much power. So it is up to us to decide what we should do. But if we do not destroy the earth, then in a sense we also become responsible for all the future evils on earth. We do not destroy the earth because we love life, thus allowing evil to run its course as before.
The principle that God is to be judged good by His own standard of goodness is intrinsically a bad principle. Because in that case we are giving unlimited license to God to decide what is good for Him. And He can arbitrarily choose any act as good for Him that is abhorrent to others. Here believers will say that God is of such a nature He can never act badly. By saying so believers are admitting that God’s acts are good not because those are God’s acts, but because God always acts conforming to some moral code. So one can say that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God’s will.
Another reason can be given as to why God cannot be good. If God is good then the question “who created God?” cannot be answered properly and there will be an infinite regression. Believers are very clever people indeed. When this question is raised, knowing very well that they have no answer to this, they cunningly place their God outside the causal space-time universe, and then claim that causal law does not apply there. But when the question comes as to whether God is good or evil, they blissfully forget that they themselves have placed their God outside the causal universe where not only the causal chain, but also none of the other categories of the created world would apply: goodness/badness, love/hate, justice/injustice, beauty/ugliness, compassion/cruelty, benevolence/malevolence, big/small, high/low, etc. & etc. And they will take no time to declare that their God is pure goodness itself, thus showing their utter inability to think consistently.
Steve May 27, 2011, 10:26 pm

Paul,
The Biblical God is the uncreated creator. One God subsisting in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. The God you are describing is not the God of the Bible.

You state that if goodness doesn’t come from God then there are two possibilities:
1) This standard is prior to God,
2) It is coeternal with, but not originated from, God.

I reject both of these possibilities. I propose goodness is an attribute of God; it emanates from the very nature of God. Goodness is not prior to God nor is it arbitrary. Instead it is an attribute or characteristic of God.

I will use a definition from Wayne Grudem’s (Systematic Theology): The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval. He goes on to say “good” can be understood to mean “worthy of approval.” We are not free to decide what is worthy of approval and what is not. Therefore, God’s being and actions are perfectly worthy of his own approval. Jesus said this, “No one is good but God alone.” (Luke 18:19) God is the standard of good and what He approves is good.

I suggest reading part 5 of “God’s Plan for Evil and Suffering.” God is not responsible nor the creator of evil; we are. All that God created was good and it was man that chose to do evil.

Goodness is just one of many attributes of God and entire books have been written on the subject. I suggest reading Grudem’s Systematic Theology book to help you grasp the Biblical God. He is the standard of good. In fact the word “good” has no meaning to humanity today outside of God revealing the practical aspects of goodness to our hearts and through the Bible. This is part of what is means to be made in the image of God.

Steve
Paul Harris May 29, 2011, 4:27 pm

In your reply you have not touched many points that I have raised. One such point is that God is being judged good by His own standard of goodness. I have said it is a dangerous principle. Even if it is not a dangerous principle, still then it may be that it is either a good principle, or a bad principle. If it is a bad principle, then the question is: why is the help of a bad principle taken in order to establish that God is good? Is God in such a miserable state that His goodness can in no way be established but by means of a bad principle only? But if it is really a good principle, then why will not man get the benefit of this good principle? Why will there be instead a bad principle for him? Is he not worthy as a creation of God? Is it that not God, but devil, has created him?
Another point is that it is usually said before creation there was no space, no time. So God was beyond space and time. But if God was beyond space and time, then He was also beyond good and evil, because all these things are the categories of the created world only. So before creation there was neither space nor time, and neither good nor evil. So how can God be good? If you do not know what is evil, how do you come to know what is good? Before creation what was evil then that you very quickly recognize that God was not that evil, but good?
If God has made man in His own image, then if God can judge me, then I can also judge Him. If not, then I will be merely a sycophant, not a proper image of God. As man can see his own image in a mirror, so God sees His own image in the mirror of man. If man behaves as if he is equal to God, then God will see in the mirror of man that He is really God. But if man behaves as if he is a sycophant, then God will see in man’s mirror that He is also a sycophant.
Steve May 30, 2011, 12:35 pm

Paul,
You said, “…God is being judged good by His own standard of goodness. I have said it is a dangerous principle. Even if it is not a dangerous principle, still then it may be that it is either a good principle, or a bad principle.”

You’re simply asserting a theory of yours. You need to present an argument. Thanks for your opinion but as I said before you are not talking about the God of the Bible. Your descriptions of dangerous principle, good principle, or bad principle are pulled out the air like a magician. The way you use the terms render them meaningless. Maybe they make sense to you but not to me. You just make them up and apply them to God. If you could, go back to the definition I gave for good. Goodness is an attribute of God; God’s being and actions are perfectly worthy of his own approval. Goodness emanates from His own nature. There is nothing contradictory with this definition.

The God of the Bible is a personal God who has attributes such as love, goodness, mercy, grace, patience, etc. As I stated previously the God of the Bible is a Triune God; one God subsists in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. This means before creation the three persons of the Trinity could exhibit all their personal attributes including goodness. God doesn’t need creation. The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit loves the Father. God has subsisted as a Trinity for all eternity. God has been loving, merciful, patient, and good for all eternity.

God is perfect and holy. When I said we were made in His image we were given certain attributes but we are not God. God has many more attributes we don’t have. God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), etc. and those are attributes we don’t possess. Many more attributes only God possesses could be stated. Being made in God’s image doesn’t mean we are like God or a duplicate of God. God has given us certain limited attributes. Adam had moral perfection (no sin) but was not perfect. God gave Adam freedom to choose to obey or not. He chose to sin and was judged for his sins. Because of sin we have lost some of our ability to use effectively the attributes God has given us.

God as creator can and will judge you. God is perfect and holy and we have sinned and fallen short of His glory (Rom. 3:23). To maintain his justice he must judge sinners.

Paul I have a few questions for you to answer.

What is your definition of good?

What is your worldview (belief system)?

Steve
Paul Harris June 8, 2011, 11:30 pm

In your reply you have posed some questions to me, and expect some definite answers to them from my side. In my earlier post I have also raised some questions to you that have not yet been answered at all.
“If you do not know what is evil, how do you come to know what is good? Before creation what was evil then that you very quickly recognize that God was not that evil, but good?”
If you do not answer my question, then how do you expect that I will answer your question?
Steve June 15, 2011, 10:53 am

Paul,
In this response I will focus on your first letter and hopefully, answer your main points. I will also ask some questions, since we seem to have different definitions for certain terms.

You said, “So we are judging God good by His own standard of goodness. But this is a dangerous principle. Because if this principle is being followed in other cases also, then there will be complete chaos. Then everybody will start claiming that he should be judged for his action by his own standard only, and not by the standard of other people, society, or state. And he can legitimately claim this, because he will say that God has made man in His own image.”

You say God is being judged by His own standard of goodness is dangerous and will cause complete chaos because humans will do the same since they are made in the image of God. What do you understand the words “God has made man in His own image” to mean? Does being made in the image of God make man equal to God? Why or why not? If we are not equal with God, then how can we make a claim we should be judged by our own standard and not His?

I will repeat what I said earlier about God’s standard of goodness: Wayne Grudem’s (Systematic Theology): The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval. He goes on to say “good” can be understood to mean “worthy of approval.” We are not free to decide what is worthy of approval and what is not. Therefore, God’s being and actions are perfectly worthy of his own approval. Jesus said this, ‘No one is good but God alone.’ (Luke 18:19) God is the standard of good and what He approves is good.”

Next you say, “Therefore the above principle will have to be abandoned and we will have to seek for some other principle. If that is the case, if we say that God is good, then we will have to admit that the standard by means of which we judge God good has not originated from Him, but from some other source. Here there are two possibilities:
1) This standard is prior to God,
2) It is co-eternal with, but not originated from, God.

In my previous email I said, “I reject both of these possibilities. I propose goodness is an attribute of God; it emanates from the very nature of God. Goodness is not prior to God nor is it arbitrary. Instead it is an attribute or characteristic of God.” The Bible supports this contention.

Psalm 100:5 (NASB) For the LORD is good; His lovingkindness is everlasting And His faithfulness to all generations.

Psalm 106:1 (NASB) Praise the LORD! Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

I could go on with additional verses but these will suffice. God is good…period! As far as the Bible goes, in my series, “Is God the Author of the Bible,” I argue why the Bible can be trusted.
You said, “In one sense it can be said that the creation of the universe was God’s greatest wrongdoing. It was His biggest blunder. Because with this creation came hunger, misery, death, suffering, sorrow, slavery, murder, rape, treason, torture, and what not! Now we cannot undo what God has already done, because it is not in our power to destroy the entire universe. But we can at least destroy the earth; science has given us that much power. So it is up to us to decide what we should do. But if we do not destroy the earth, then in a sense we also become responsible for all the future evils on earth. We do not destroy the earth because we love life, thus allowing evil to run its course as before.”

My series, “God’s Plan for Suffering and Evil,” deals with this objection. God created the earth good; it was Adam, representing all mankind, who chose to rebel against His creator. We are the authors of evil and not God. Read my series and you will get a more in depth answer.

You said, “The principle that God is to be judged good by His own standard of goodness is intrinsically a bad principle. Because in that case we are giving unlimited license to God to decide what is good for Him. And He can arbitrarily choose any act as good for Him that is abhorrent to others.”

I dealt with this objection above. Goodness emanates from the nature of God and is not arbitrary.

Finally, you said in your first letter, “Another reason can be given as to why God cannot be good. If God is good then the question “who created God?” cannot be answered properly and there will be an infinite regression. Believers are very clever people indeed. When this question is raised, knowing very well that they have no answer to this, they cunningly place their God outside the causal space-time universe, and then claim that causal law does not apply there. But when the question comes as to whether God is good or evil, they blissfully forget that they themselves have placed their God outside the causal universe where not only the causal chain, but also none of the other categories of the created world would apply: goodness/badness, love/hate, justice/injustice, beauty/ugliness, compassion/cruelty, benevolence/malevolence, big/small, high/low, etc. & etc. And they will take no time to declare that their God is pure goodness itself, thus showing their utter inability to think consistently.”

As I stated previously, God is the uncreated creator. How can you say the goodness of the uncreated creator leads to an infinite regress?
In my previous answer, God subsists eternally as the Triune God. As far as the question of time, I reject the idea God is outside the casual space-time universe. For solid information on God and time I suggest reading an article by William Lane Craig at: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5387

Time is a difficult topic but Craig has a solid grasp of God’s relationship to time. I will quote from the article by William Lane Craig:
“Therefore the model I want to propose is that God exists timelessly without creation and temporally subsequent to creation. I think we can get a physical analogy for this from the notion of an initial cosmological singularity. The cosmological singularity in which our universe began is, strictly speaking, not part of space and time, and therefore it is not earlier than the universe; rather, it is the boundary of space and time. The singularity is causally prior to our universe, but it is not chronologically prior to the universe. It exists on the boundary of space-time. Analogously, I want to suggest that we think of eternity, like the singularity, as the boundary of time. God is causally prior, but not chronologically prior, to the universe. His changeless, timeless, eternal state is the boundary of time, at which He exists without the universe, and at the moment of creation God enters into time in virtue of His real relation to the created order and His knowledge of tensed facts, so that God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.”

In my case the conclusions you stated about a God who is outside the casual universe are rendered false. Even if God were outside of time I am not sure your conclusions are valid. However, I don’t have to answer that contention because I have a different view of time and God.

Hopefully, I have covered the content of your first letter. Based on my answers and my web site you know my worldview. I would love to know where you are coming from. What is your worldview (belief system)?

What is your definition of good?

Steve
Paul Harris September 17, 2011, 9:50 am

If God is love, then before creation whom did He love?
For christian God, this is very easy to answer, because christian God is trinitarian. So father loved son, son in turn loved holy ghost and holy ghost in turn loved father.
But God is not only love, He is merciful, just as well.
If God is merciful, then before creation to whom was He merciful?
Perhaps the reply will be that father was merciful to son, son in turn was merciful to holy ghost and holy ghost was in turn merciful to father.
But the question is: why will father have to be merciful to son? Was there any possibility for son to commit any sin, and so, father would have a provision for mercy also for his only begotten son?
Similarly it can be asked: why will holy ghost have to be merciful to father? In this case, was there any possibility for father to commit any sin?
Steve September 18, 2011, 6:22 am

Paul,
In your letter you make a major assumption; that any and all attributes of God have to be expressed in some fashion before creation. Why do you believe this? If we are talking about the Christian God, where in the Bible is this taught?

Yes the Christian God is a Triune God and some of His attributes can be expressed before creation. However, it is a huge leap to assume all of them must be utilized prior to creation. Why didn’t you pick on God’s attribute of wrath and ask where was that expressed?

Even in our human experience certain attributes are not expressed until the situation arises. I can think of mercy, jealousy, righteous anger, and justice are all attributes I have but they are not in play until the situation warrants their manifestation.

God has certain attributes that will not be expressed until creation; that does not mean He doesn’t possess those in His nature. Once man sins, God will demonstrate mercy to all who accept His free gift of forgiveness through His Son Jesus Christ.

Steve
Paul Harris September 20, 2011, 11:17 am

From what you have written in your post it appears that atheists are correct in their saying that God has not created man in His own image, but that man has created God in his own image. So God is man-made God, He is simply a superman. Whether such a man-made God does really exist is very much doubtful.
Steve September 23, 2011, 3:15 pm

Paul,
I was disappointed in your reply. It seems to me you have run out of answers and now simply resort to giving your opinion and attacking the God of the Bible. You letter is without an argument, simply assertions. If this discussion is to continue please reply to my arguments in my previous email. If you want to end our discussion I am okay with that option.

Steve

Next post: Part 14 What’s so important about understanding the Trinity?

Previous post: Part 13 Understanding difficult passages

Establishing God as Creator	Unmasking the Deception of Mormonism	Defending the Life of the Unborn	Loving the Trinity	Believing in Jesus as God and Man

Sharing with a Jehovah’s Witness	Religious Liberties at Risk	Discovering the Historical Jesus	God’s Plan for Evil and Suffering	Was the Resurrection a Historical Event?

Do Objective Morals Exist?

Answering Tough Questions

Counting the Cost

Is God the Author of the Bible?

God’s Holiness and Love Wins

Ministering to Mormons in Utah

Challenging a Jehovah’s Witness

What Ever Happened to Hell?

Accurately Interpreting the Scriptures

Understanding the Christian Worldview

Accused of Partnering in Wickedness

Set Apart Christ as Lord

Sharing with Knowledge & Wisdom

Becoming a Good Ambassador for Christ

How to Persuade Others

Exposing the Deceit of the Watchtower Organization

Go to Site Map