Chapter Four

Who created God?

Sometimes, I have noticed, some people who are normally rational, calm, and sensible can ask this question with a sort of fevered triumph. ‘Ha, got you there, Vicar! Can’t answer that one can you!’ ‘Saying that God created the universe does not explain where things came from’, they might add. ‘It just moves the question back one stage. It explains nothing’.

In such cases, I wonder what reaction they are expecting. ‘Oh gosh, I hadn’t thought of that. No, I can’t answer it. You have destroyed the entire basis of my faith with one devastating logical blow. How clever of you’. Maybe not.

Answering the question means going by a slightly roundabout route so bear with me. But as Henry the Eighth used to say to his wives: ‘don’t worry, I won’t keep you long.’

Who or what is God?

I guess we should start by saying what we mean by the word God, that is, God with a big G. When asked to define God, people of a philosophical turn of mind might come up with something along the lines of: ‘the ultimate origin of all things that came into being’. I like that phrase, but to save time, I’ll mostly just call it the ultimate origin and we’ll take the ‘… of all things that came into being’ as read. We note in passing that things that didn’t come into being have two options: either they don’t exist at all or they have always existed. But we’ll come back to that.

Is that a definition of the Christian God? Yes and no. When Christians talk about God, they definitely mean the ultimate origin, but clearly there is more to the Christian God than that.

As well as the ultimate origin, when Christians talk about God, they mean a personal being; that is to say a consciousness, a being who possesses a will and the means of carrying out that will. He is additionally morally good, indeed the source of moral goodness. As philosopher Tim Mawson puts it:

Believing that God exists is believing that the most perfect person possible exists, a being who is personal; transcendent; omnipotent; omniscient; eternal; perfectly free; perfectly good; and necessary (Mawson, p108).

This is the God of the philosophers. When Christians talk about God, they definitely mean the God of the philosophers, but once again there is more.

The God of the Christians is concerned about human beings:

3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers,

    the moon and the stars, which you have ordained;

4 what is man, that you think of him?

    What is the son of man, that you care for him?

5 For you have made him a little lower than the angels,

    and crowned him with glory and honour.

(Psalm 8:3-5)

Finally, we must declare God to be: ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’.

So, we have a three-layered definition. Each layer includes the previous ones. The Christian God is:

• The ultimate origin of all things that came into being
• The God of the philosophers
• The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

In this chapter and the next we consider the first two layers. We will come to the third later.

It is reasonable to believe that there is an ultimate origin, more than reasonable in fact; although the existence of an ultimate origin doesn’t mean very much in itself. Things get more controversial, but also much more interesting, when we ask what sort of features we would expect the ultimate origin to have. In particular, is there reason to expect the ultimate origin be a personal being? Does a consideration of the ultimate origin lead us - plausibly - to the God of the philosophers?

 

The ultimate origin of all things that came into being

I came into being. My origin is my parents, Vivien and George. Their origin is their parents, George, Sarah, Albert and Jane, and so on - but does that chain or web of origins stop somewhere - and, godammit, does it stop doubling in size every time you go back one stage! Does it end in a single ultimate origin along with everything else?

The famous cosmological argument, in its various forms, attempts to show that there is an ultimate origin. Historically, it is most associated with St Thomas Aquinas, the mediaeval philosopher and theologian who, in turn, based his work on the writings of Aristotle. The best known, modern version of the argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, most associated nowadays with philosopher William Lane Craig, although it has a long history (Craig, 111-141). Craig writes:

The Kalam cosmological argument may be formulated as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe then aims to establish some of the theologically significant properties of this being (Craig, 111).

Craig, of course, discusses 1 and 2 in detail, and explains why these are plausible. 3 Follows from them, if they are established, and the conceptual analysis can then proceed. We simply note that:

• There are no examples, as far as we know, of anything that came into being without a cause
• the idea of cause and effect is of central important in science – and any attempt to make sense of events that happen
• Big bang cosmology strongly indicates the universe had a beginning

For our purposes, though, rather than conducting a detailed analysis of the Cosmological Argument, perhaps it’s enough to consider the viability of the alternatives to the ultimate origin. As Sherlock Holmes once said: ‘When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’

The alternative to there being an ultimate origin is that there is no ultimate origin.

In which case, did everything ultimately come from nothing? By nothing, I don’t mean empty space or some exotic phenomenon such as the ‘quantum vacuum’, both of which are something. I mean proper, absolute nothing. In case you haven’t come across the idea of the quantum vacuum, I should say that the idea doesn’t come from Star Trek or Doctor Who, it really is a thing; something in fact (Davies, 75).

I disregard the idea that everything came from nothing on the grounds that ‘it just doesn’t seem very likely’. If things can come into existence from nothing, why don’t we see that happening all the time? If something can come from nothing, then how does nothing decide which things will come into existence and when?

Accepting this idea, the idea that everything ultimately came from nothing, would mean giving up on the whole idea of explaining things, just when you get to the exciting bit, the very beginning. The denouement to end all denouements; or should that be the denouement to begin all denouements?

Or is there an infinite regress of origins, that is to say, does the chain or web of causes go back for ever without end? That would mean that everything individually has a cause, but everything collectively does not. I would treat that idea in the same way as I would a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Entertaining, but I would be suspicious of someone who wanted me to invest money in it as a way of creating rabbits.

So, the alternatives aren’t really much of an alternative. So, it is reasonable to suppose that an ultimate origin exists.

The ‘argument from contingency’ is the third of Aquinas’s cosmological arguments. Contingent means true by virtue of the way things happen to be and not by logical necessity. Our existence is contingent – we did not have to exist – it just so happens that we do. There was a time when we did not exist and there will be a time when we do not exist once again. The existence of the ultimate origin cannot be like this. Its existence must be of a logically necessary kind.

The way I would put it is that the ‘ultimate origin all things that came into being’ cannot itself have an origin, otherwise it would not be the ultimate origin of all things that came into being. It did not come into being. It must be the thing that has always existed, must exist, and will, therefore, presumably always exist.

Is it necessary to state that the first cause cannot cause itself? Thought not.

As we have noted, science relies on the belief that there is an underlying rational, reliable, intelligible order to the universe. It both relies on that belief, but also justifies it. Why does this order exist? it must have come from somewhere. Just as it is reasonable to suppose that something cannot come out of nothing, it is reasonable to suppose that order cannot come out of chaos. If the universe is ordered, rational and reliable then its origin, the ultimate origin, must be the source of that rational, reliable, intelligible order.

Could there be more than one ultimate origin? There could, but the principle of parsimony, Ockham’s razor, tells us that we should assume the simplest explanation to be the correct one unless there are very good reasons for supposing otherwise (see the prologue). One way of stating the principle of Ockham’s razor is that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily. This must apply to the ultimate cause as much as it does to any other. Furthermore, as philosopher David Hume points out:

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author. 

David Hume The Natural History of Religion. (Hume, ‘Natural History of Religion’, introduction)

So, it is reasonable to suppose that there is precisely one ultimate origin.

So, the ultimate origin: one, without beginning or end, without cause, whose existence is not contingent but necessary, which is the source of the underlying rational, reliable, intelligible order in the universe and by which all things were made that were made. Does this remind you of something?

Perhaps the universe itself is the ultimate origin, or some essential subset of the universe. Well perhaps, but current day science strongly suggests not. The universe, or at least the universe we know, has not existed for an infinite amount of time; according to science it is 13.8 billion years old. You might think that this obviously implies that the universe had a beginning. There are plenty of people who don’t like the idea that the universe had a beginning, and who try to explain the finite age of the universe away. Rabbit, hat, anybody? There is a technical discussion to be had about whether the finite age of the universe means that the universe has a beginning (Craig, 116 – 141). Craig concludes the discussion by quoting Alexander Vilenkin, Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University: ‘It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning’ (Craig, 140). So, it is reasonable to believe that the universe, or least the universe we know, came into being. Incidentally, this doesn’t mean that there was a ‘time before the universe’. Time is part of the universe and came into being with the universe.

As well as this, as far as we know, the existence of the things that make up the universe, protons, neutrons, electrons and so on, and the laws that they follow is contingent. They did not have to exist, it just so happens that they do. The numbers that Martin Rees calls cosmic numbers, which we will discuss at length in chapter five, certainly appear to be contingent. So then, according to current day science, the universe is not the ultimate origin. It does not have the right properties: it is not without beginning, and its existence is, as far we can tell, contingent. Neither is there any reason to think that the universe contains the ultimate origin. If we want to find the ultimate origin of things we must look outside the known universe.

We have not proven that God is the ultimate origin but, since we have eliminated the universe itself from our inquiries, he is at the very least, an obvious candidate.

If an employer advertises a job and only one candidate applies, the employer does not have to appoint him or her if they are unsuitable. The employer can readvertise - previous applicants need not apply - you know the score. But there is no guarantee that anyone will respond.

But perhaps there is another viable candidate. It is possible that the universe we know is part of some larger super-universe, and maybe that larger universe fits the bill. We will discuss that possibility in the next chapter.

Craig summarises:

On the basis of a conceptual analysis of the conclusion implied by the Kalam cosmological argument we may therefore infer that a personal creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful. This as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody refers to as God. (Craig, 154)

It would seem that, starting with the ultimate origin, we have arrived - plausibly - at the God of the philosophers. You might reasonably wonder how the word ‘personal’ got into that list of adjectives; isn’t that taking the cosmological argument beyond its remit? Well, technically, yes; but you could say that explaining how the word ‘personal’ got into the list is the main theme of the rest of this book!

The uncreated creator and designer of the universe

The first line of any book is designed to grab your attention as well as introducing you to the theme of the book. There are some real crackers:

‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.’

‘Now is the winter of our discontent, Made glorious summer by this son of York …’

‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness …’

‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...’

And the most famous opening line of all:

‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth …’

The Bible set out its stall right from the start. The God described within this book is the uncreated creator, and his name is I AM WHAT I AM.

We can now answer the question we started with. According to Christianity, God was not created. He did not come into being. He is being. He is the ultimate origin of all things that came into being and so does not have an origin. He is the uncreated creator … and it is not true that idea of God explains nothing.

Christianity does not only claim that God created the universe, but that he also designed it for a purpose, and that we are part of that purpose. Modern cosmology appears to confirm the idea that the universe was created and designed with us in mind; or at least with the creation of life in mind. In short it has shown the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life. Most scientists agree that the fine tuning exists (McGrath, 118). Needless to say, not all scientists agree that the existence of fine tuning is evidence for the existence of God!

The first three of St Thomas’ ways, his arguments for the existence of God, are cosmological arguments. The fourth is the Argument from Degree. It’s interesting, but we won’t discuss it here. The fifth is the Teleological Argument, the Argument from Ends. It is similar to the Argument from Design, although not quite the same, but let’s not quibble. The Argument from Design says that if the universe is designed then there must be a being that designed it. This being we call God, we might say, again following the example of Aquinas. The fine tuning of the universe makes it look like it was designed. But does that fact prove that God exists?

The logic of the Design Argument is indisputable. If there is design then there must be a designer. However, just because the universe looks like it was designed that doesn’t mean it necessarily was. Perhaps it just appears to be designed. How can we tell? It’s a surprisingly difficult question.

 

What is design?

Or to be more precise, how do we recognise design when we see it?

Here are four examples which might help to clarify the question or, who knows, maybe even the answer. The first is an example of a complicated design, the second is an example of a simple design, the third is not an example of design at all. The fourth is a return to our favourite, the human eye, which is an example of just how confusing it can all get.

Consider the example of a motor car. If we wanted to explain the motor car, we might start by describing how it works: pistons, drive shafts, carburettors, and so on. We might call that the scientific explanation. We might also describe the history of the motor car, and explain where motor cars came from. We could call this the historical explanation.  Those are two different types of explanation, but both are important and both are complete in their own terms. The first practical motor car and the first car put into commercial production, the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, was built by Karl Benz in 1885. Benz is consequently called the ‘father’ of the car and I guess you could call the Benz Patent-Motorwagen the common ancestor of all the cars you see today. The motor car evolved from this first simple car by a series of small steps. I suppose you could even say that natural selection played a part. The successful cars were those that were best adapted to their environment – the commercial market place. These were manufactured in large numbers and their design ideas were copied by the designers of later models and so the superior designs were passed on and improved upon in future generations.

Even though cars went through a process of evolution, they are designed objects. Engineers deliberately designed them for a purpose. To say that motor cars are a product of design is the correct explanation of their existence. Cars, of course, obey the laws of physics and chemistry but their existence is not explained by those laws. They are the products of design, of deliberate choice. We see that whilst everything in the universe obeys the laws of physics, not everything is explained by them.

A car is a complex designed object, but complexity and design are two different issues which should not be confused. Archaeologists excavating a stone age site can tell the difference between a rock and a hand axe, even if the difference is not obvious to a non-specialist. The latter object, the hand axe, is a designed object, and it has a purpose, but it is not complex. The archaeologist will deduce that the object was of human design and manufacture, in spite of its simplicity, whether or not he or she knows anything about the people who made it. As a matter of fact, simplicity is a sign of good design. There is a principle, originally an engineering principle, called the KISS principle which can be applied to all sorts of things besides engineering. KISS means keep it simple, stupid, or keep it stupid simple, depending on who you ask. A well-designed object will be no more complicated than it needs to be. Complex design can be impressive, but sometimes simple design can be even more so.

You do not need to explain where the designers, the engineers, came from for design to be a valid explanation of the motor car. If you are a biologist, you will be interested in explaining where humans, and therefore engineers, came from by using the theory of evolution by natural selection, but your history of the car will be complete without you doing so. You do not need to explain who designed the designers to a bunch of car enthusiasts who might be surprised if you tried it and wonder why you thought that was necessary!

If you find a designed object, simple or complex, you can deduce with one hundred percent confidence that there is or was a designer of the object, even if you have no idea who or what the designer is. If there is design behind the universe then there is a cosmic designer. There is no other option. The fact we don’t, and probably can’t, have an explanation for the designer might bother some people, but does not change the fact that, if there is design, then there must be a designer. Compare this situation with theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory, plausibly, explains how life evolved from (relatively) simple forms into more complex ones. As we noted in chapter two, we have no idea how the simple life forms or proto-lifeforms which started the process of evolution came to be, and it is possible that we may never know. Yet it would be ridiculous to suggest that the lack of an explanation of how primitive life on earth first got started invalidates evolution as an explanation of what happened next. Of course it doesn’t. Likewise, that fact that we can’t explain the existence of the designer, does not mean that, if the universe is indeed designed, the existence of a designer is not the correct explanation of that design.

The question ‘how can we explain the existence of God?’ is not a question that we can expect to answer anytime soon. So, let’s ask a different question; a question which we can at least try to answer, namely ‘is the universe designed?’

This is not a simple question since, as we know, some things can appear to be designed when they are not.

One explanation of the origin of the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland is that it was built by the giant Fionn mac Cumhaill (pronounced Finn MacCool). Apparently, what you see now is the remains of a path which he built which led across the sea to Scotland. Fionn built it so he could cross over to have a dust up with a Scottish giant who had challenged him. Looking at the striking hexagonal pillars which form a pathway down to the sea you might wonder if it was deliberately built that way. However, here is an alternative story which explains the causeway, using geology. It would be difficult to find someone who didn’t prefer the latter explanation. Personally, I doubt that many people ever really believed the Fionn mac Cumhaill explanation. I suspect the story was always told with a twinkle in the eye and a glass of Guinness in the hand.

Less frivolously, we can go back to the example of the human eye. This is complicated, and has the appearance of design and people really did believe that it was a product of deliberate design. But according to the theory of evolution by natural selection the human eye is not a product of deliberate design, but natural selection which is a purposeless and, in the sense that we discussed earlier, a random process.

So: the motor car and stone age hand axe have the appearance of design and are designed; the Giant’s Causeway and the human eye have the appearance of design and yet they are not designed. The previous statement is uncontroversial since in the first two cases we know who the designers are and in the second two, we know of a natural explanation for them. By natural explanation I mean a scientific explanation in terms of initial conditions, the laws of physics and chemistry together with logical principles, which does not involve conscious agents such as human beings, alien intelligences or of course God. What happens, though, when we don’t have a natural explanation, and the designer is – well – present only in spirit?

Here is part of a highly sophisticated, but nevertheless mistaken, version of the Argument from Design taken from Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature by William Paley published in 1802. The title of the book turned out to be unintentionally appropriate: ‘appearances’ can be deceiving. Darwin was greatly impressed by this argument in his youth; but we all know what happened next!

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

Paley argued that there is an analogy between the watch and many of the structures we find in nature, including the human eye. The watch is complicated; that is, it is made up of many different parts arranged in a very particular way so that together they perform a function, as is the human eye. The watch had a designer, therefore by analogy, the human eye also had a designer, namely God, he claims. Of course, the watch is the product of a process of evolution which started with simple forms: Stonehenge (apparently), progressing though the sundial, water clocks, early mechanical clocks, then through a process of miniaturisation to the watch, then atomic clocks and then … . It is a product of evolution, but the watch is a designed object as are all its ancestors.

However, as Darwin pointed out, analogy may be a deceitful guide. We now know that the analogy is very misleading, although it was convincing to the original readers of Paley’s book. The watch for sure had a designer, but the human eye did not, at least not in the same way that a watch has a designer. Paley and his readers could not conceive of how an object such as the human eye could come it to existence without a designer and yet, it seems, that’s what happened. The theory of evolution by natural selection provides a plausible natural explanation for the appearance of design of the human eye and, even if that explanation turns out to be incomplete, the appearance of design in the human eye provides no support for the Argument from Design, quite the reverse. It demonstrates how wrong we can be. Even when things seem obviously true to us, they can turn out to be mistaken. Paley’s error meant that supporters of the Argument from Design, thoroughly chastened, had to go back to the drawing board and learn to be very cautious in future about what they claimed.

What should we conclude from all of this? We have noted that can be very difficult to tell the difference between objects which are the product of nature and objects which are the product of design. We can believe that something is a designed object, which then turns out in fact to have a natural explanation. And yet designed objects do exist. There is no natural explanation for the motor car for example. Cars obey the laws of physics but they are not explained by them. The explanation in this case is that the motor car was designed and created by conscious, intelligent beings by a deliberate act of will, and for a purpose. A theologically inclined person, in a mischievous mood, might call this a supernatural explanation. But let’s not go quite so far. The conscious, intelligent beings in this case, whatever else they might be, are themselves natural objects. So, what shall we do?  In the spirit of the principles listed in chapter one, we need a reliable, pragmatic rule to follow. How about this: If we find a mysterious object or phenomenon within the universe which looks like it might be the result of design, the Giant’s Causeway or human eye, or whatever it might be, we should not jump to the conclusion that it is designed. We should try to find a natural explanation for it, and keep on trying, unless we have a very good reason for doing otherwise.

The object of interest here, though, is the universe itself and that is a unique case. It is possible that there is a natural explanation for everything in the universe, but there cannot be a natural explanation for the universe itself, at least not in the sense defined above, that is a scientific explanation in terms of initial conditions, the laws of physics and chemistry together with logical principles. The explanation of the universe itself, if we ever find one, will be of a different, presumably unique kind.

Might that explanation involve design? It could be that there are not multiple individual designs in the universe, but one single (simple?) design of the universe, a cosmic blueprint as Paul Davies puts it, which was there from the beginning (Davies, Cosmic Blueprint). This is a view that I personally favour as do many others. On this view the human eye is not designed, but it is part of a design: the one universal design.

Modern cosmology strongly suggests that the universe is designed. Even though the universe is a unique case, we still have to ask the question: is the universe designed or does it just appear to be? Before we try to answer that question, we better do some cosmology.

Summary

Modern cosmology strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning: that the universe is not eternal, it came into being, it began to exist. It is reasonable to suppose that everything that began to exist had a cause because:

• There are no examples, as far as we know, of anything that came into being without a cause
• the idea of cause and effect is of central important in science – and any attempt to make sense of events that happen
• It is reasonable to suppose that something cannot come from nothing
• It is reasonable to suppose that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes

It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the universe has an ultimate cause. This ultimate cause must be itself without cause, without beginning or end; its existence and its properties must be necessary not contingent. It is reasonable to suppose that it is the source the underlying rational, reliable, intelligible order in the universe

None of this shows that this ultimate cause is the Christian God. A great deal more is required to show that. But the idea of the ultimate cause does give us a minimalistic definition of God which can use as a starting point for a discussion: God is the uncreated creator. Whatever else the Christian God may be, he is at least that.

Modern cosmology appears to confirm the idea that the universe was created and designed with us in mind; or at least with the creation of life in mind. In short it has shown the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life. The logic of the Design Argument is indisputable. If there is design then there must be a designer. However, just because the universe looks like it was designed that doesn’t mean it necessarily was. Perhaps it just appears to be designed. How can we tell? It’s a surprisingly difficult question, but the next chapter might help to answer it.

 

Works Cited

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3^rd ed., Crossway, 2008.

Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. Penguin Books, 2007.

Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe Universe. Simon & Schuster, 1988

Hume, David. The Natural History of Religion. Hume Texts on Line.

https://davidhume.org/texts/n/full. Accessed 14^th October 2024.

Mawson, T.J. Belief in God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford university Press, 2005.

McGrath, Alister. A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.