Draft – Needs IMAGE: What Do You Say When Someone Asks, “Who Made God?”

If you’ve ever been asked, “Who made God,” please read this so that you’ll know just how to answer them.

Who Made God?

Not long ago, I read a book by Professor Edgar Andrews entitled, “Who Made God.” In his book, Professor Andrews states that the goal is not to refute atheistic assertions, but to develop a theory of everything (p. 10), including who made God, if God was made. Of course, Andrews believes in God, but he wants to bring a rational, logical approach to the question, “Who made God?” His answer envelops both the material and non-material aspects of the universe. The question is repeatedly asked by Richard Dawkins, publically, and in his book, “The God Delusion.” Who made God have been the atheist’s most frequent philosophical weapon and objection to the existence of God, but that question does have a rational answer.

Who Made Everything?

Professor Andrews’s addresses the argument that “manmade God” is actually the polar opposite of what Christians assert to be true. But then the professor asks, “If we made God, who made us” (p. 17)? Evolution isn’t as much a cause of anything, but rather it includes categorizing and observations. Evolution doesn’t deal with the cause of who made us or who or what made matter. Turing the tables, you could ask the atheist, “If evolution made us, who made evolution” (p. 18)? The atheist might answer, “Everything around us” made us, to which we could ask, “Who made everything around us?” This is like the circular, never ending cycle, which is what is called Tautology. If A makes B, then A must be greater than B (p. 19). Professor Andrews uses the example that Beethoven was greater than his composition. Another way to look at this “who made God” question is to use his wife’s example of making a cake. His wife makes a cake. The cake exists for a time, but then it’s eaten, and it’s gone. Now it ceases to exist. The wife must be greater than the cake she created, because she continues to exist and thus, his wife is greater than her creation, the cake. What has created and continues to exist must be greater than that which was created.

Probabilities

It would seem to be a rational statement that a God who made a hugely complex universe must be more huge and complex than His creation, but those who deny God’s existence point to The Probability Theory, which is a branch of mathematics using numbers (e.g., the probability of having a coin toss land heads or tails an “x” number of times). The probability is graphed on an X-Y graph with a curve charting the probabilities of a particular sequence (p. 20). Professor Andrews has successfully debunked the Probability Theory as “nothing of the real world” (p.20). You deal with probabilities every day. For example, if there is a 30% chance of rain, you might bring an umbrella, but if there’s a 90% chance of rain, you will likely take your umbrella and wear a raincoat. Now think about this. Did the probability of the chance for rain (30%) actually cause it to rain? Did the meteorologists forecast alter the atmospheric conditions enough to create higher dew points and a falling barometer? Of course not! The weather radio told us there’s a “chance” of rain,” but it didn’t rain. Chance has not power. It is not a thing. It cannot do anything. It is only the likelihood of something happen. It has no effect on making something happen or not happen. The universe could not have been caused by “chance” or “random accidents” any more than a tornado hits a printing press and out comes an encyclopedia.

No Chance

Richard Dawkins ignores the fact that chance cannot do anything and cannot create an effect. Even so, in one of his other books, Climbing Mount Improbable, he hails the astronomical probabilities as confirmation of the probable outcome, again ignoring the fact that chance is a non-event, or a non-material catalyst; it is a non-factor and cannot be said to be a cause of anything. In the Science of Thermodynamics, its statistical probabilities of spontaneous events are used by Dawkins as a causative force. He equates the statistical probabilities of spontaneous events as related mathematically, to the degree of order or complexity in the system (p. 22). Low complexity requires high entropy or randomness, while high complexity necessarily requires low entropy or randomness. Professor Andrews uses the example of a china bowl being dropped and shattering as becoming less ordered. If you collect these shattered pieces on the floor and drop them again, will they become more complex or will they become more ordered? Obviously, it will move to greater chaos and not “work its way” back to complexity, which is what evolution portends. To make the shattered bowl more ordered requires “…more directed energy input and intelligent effort; therefore, “It could never happened on its own“(p. 23). Dawkins, conversely, believes that it could, apparently, and this flies in the face of the Science of Thermodynamics. Low complexity can be served by randomness, e.g., 6 dice dropped on the floor can for a circle. High complexity “…has a negligible probability of occurring accidentally or spontaneously” (p. 23).

God the Creator

Professor Andrews knows God is the Creator, and writes that the universe, or all physical matter, “…represents a highly improbable arrangement of matter and energy, an extremely improbable arrangement” (p. 23). It could not be by chance or an “accident.” Professor Andrews writes, “The Laws of fundamental constants of nature give every appearance of being fine-tuned to permit the existence of intelligence life on earth,” known as the Anthropic Principle (p. 23). The chances of a complex universe and life all coming together by chance is like trying to restore a shattered china bowl by continually scattering the pieces. As you can see, it is “highly improbable because of its uniquely formed” substance and shape of the china (p. 24). Albert Einstein succinctly stated that, “There are only two ways that you can live. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle. I believe in the latter”. Professor Andrews leaves us with one powerful statement: “Science can describe the fundamental structures of matter, energy, space, and time but can hardly be said to explain them” (p. 27).

Conclusion

Sometimes, you’ll hear the statement, “God must have a cause,” but then they’re assuming that there is no spiritual or non-physical realm, which is impossible to prove (p. 25). Thomas Edison said, “We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything,” and he’s right, but the universe does show God’s existence as the Creator (Psalm 19:1-2), so there is no excuse for non-believers (Rom 1:18-20). It’s like saying, “How long is a piece of string?” The question is which piece of string do you mean? Professor Andrews concludes by saying, “There can be no logical answer for an illogical question” (p. 26) like “Who made God.” The question then becomes “Who created the uncreated one” (p. 26)? We are to be ready at all times to give an answer for the hope that’s found in Christ, but we must always answer them with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15). No one was ever argued into heaven or debated out of hell.

Professor Emeritus of the University of London, Edgar Andrews.
Who Made God? EP Books, Darlington, England. Copyright, 2009. ISBN-13 (978-0-85234-707-2)