If God created the universe then who created God (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-03)

The skeptics ask "If you creationists think
the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause?" If God created the universe,
then who created God? This week on Creation Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name is Richard Fangrad. And I'm Thomas Bailey. This week on Creation Magazine LIVE! Our topic
is a common, question, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" Now this question can get a little complicated so it's worth taking some time to think it through. That's right.

And we actually have an article with that
exact title on the website at creation.Com/whomadegod that you can check out to help you do that But we can start with a simple answer to the
question, who created God? By definition God is the uncreated creator
of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' Is actually an illogical question. Right. It's like asking "Who is the bachelor
married to?" Or "How many square circles are there?" Or something like that. That's right.

So, while that's a correct answer, a more
sophisticated questioner might ask, "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't
God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should
the universe need a cause? Why do you need to invoke God as a cause of
the universe if you believe in things that are uncaused?" Those are the kinds of questions that we'll
dive into today. That's right, and a good reply for Christians
to begin with is to use the following line of reasoning: 1) Everything that has a beginning
has a cause. 2) The universe has a beginning. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It's important to note that not everything
needs a cause, only things that had a beginning. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, and we'll talk about that in a few minutes. The Bible makes it clear that God, unlike
the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. Yes, and in addition to that, the study of
physics tells us that matter, space and time are a package deal  they all have to happen
together.

So time itself would have to begin together
with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of
the whole universe then, He is also the creator of time. And since He's the creator of time itself,
He's not limited by the time dimension He created, so He has no beginning in time
as the Bible says. God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabits
eternity' as it says in Isaiah 57:15.

So He doesn't have a cause. And in Psalm 90 verse 2 says, "Before the
mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God." But, let's face it, that's a hard concept
for the human mind to grasp  we just cannot comprehend existence without time. And because it's hard to comprehend, skeptics
sometimes use that as an excuse to reject the idea that the God of the Bible exists. But the problem doesn't go away if you think the universe somehow created itself! Something has to be eternal no matter what
your worldview is.

Either there is an eternal God that created
or there is eternal matter that created. The problem is there is good evidence that
the universe definitely had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics,
the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. So, when we get back we'll show you the
evidence that the universe definitely had a beginning In his second letter, the Apostle Peter links
Jesus' second coming and judgment of the whole world to the historical reality of Noah's flood.

He prophesied: " in the last days scoffers
will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this "coming"
he promised?  But they deliberately forget that long
ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time
was deluged and destroyed." And Genesis is clear: the words all, every,
everything, and entire are used eight times in chapter 7 to describe what was covered
or destroyed by the flood. Genesis 7:23 says, "Every living thing on
the face of the earth was wiped out".

In the same way the Flood was real and global,
so too will the second coming of Jesus be real and the whole world will be judged. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website, CREATION.Com. Well if you've just tuned in, this week
we are asking the question "If God created the universe, then who created God?" And
what we saw is that when you look into it a little bit deeper it can get a little more
complex than you might think initially. No matter what your worldview is, given the
concept of cause and effect, then sooner or later you have to accept the idea that something
must be eternal.

So, either there is an eternal God that created, or matter is eternal and it gave rise to the universe. The problem with matter being eternal is there is good evidence that the universe definitely had a beginning. So matter is not eternal. OK, so how do we know that? It can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics,
the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

Now, there are 4 laws:
the zeroth, the first, the second, and third. (Don't ask!) And the second and third laws are the most
familiar, so let's review those laws. The 1st Law states that the total amount
of mass-energy in the universe is constant. And the 2nd Law states that the amount of
energy available for work is running out, or you could say entropy, the measure of disorder
in the universe, is increasing towards the maximum.

Now if the total amount of mass-energy is
constant and limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe can't
have existed forever, right? -- Put them together and that's what you get, otherwise it would
already have exhausted all of its usable energy. The end result is what's called 'heat
death' of the universe. Heat death is when all the stars have used
all their fuel, all the radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe
would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. It's when all the energy sources in the
entire universe would be completely spent.

So, the obvious conclusion is that the universe
began a finite time ago  so matter and energy are not eternal. And it began with a lot of usable energy. Today we see this energy winding down. If it's winding down so-to-speak it must
have been wound up somehow, so it definitely had a beginning.

Right, OK, so, the conclusion from physics
is that the universe had a beginning, but there are people who accept that the universe
had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause. Well, people seem to be willing to believe
all sorts of strange things these days just to try to avoid belief in God! But look, it's self-evident that things
that have a beginning have a cause. No one, no sane person anyway, really denies this. All of science and history would collapse
if this law of cause and effect were denied.

I mean, so would all of law enforcement! If the police didn't think they needed to
find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house then why investigate? That's right, yes. If you're at that point then you should
just never ask the question 'Why?' Ever again, because there doesn't need to be
an answer. Exactly. If you are saying something had a beginning
but didn't have an outside cause then the only option is that it was 'self-caused'.

Self caused - right. But the universe cannot be 'self'-caused. Actually, nothing can create itself, because
that would mean that it existed before it came into existence. And that just don't make no sense! And it's not very scientific.

Right, that too. OK, let's summarize a bit here before we move on. Number 1. The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

Yes. Number 2. It is unreasonable to believe that something could begin to exist without a cause. Which means, number 3, The universe needs a cause, just as Genesis
1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

And, number 4, God, as the creator of time, is outside of
time. Since He has no beginning in time, He has
always existed, God, therefore, doesn't need a cause. There are people who don't want to believe
in the Creator God of the Bible, so they try to poke holes in these statements. So we need to spend some time discussing some
common objections to this line of reasoning.

But what we'll show you is that the facts
we observe provide evidence that is consistent with the Bible. And lots of people just don't like that. And just because people don't like the
idea that there is a God who they're accountable to doesn't make God disappear, or make this
line of reasoning unsound or wrong. There are two ways to properly refute an argument:
either show that it is logically invalid, or, show that at least one of the premises
is false.

So, when we get back we will see if the answer
to 'Who created God?' Stands up to scrutiny. We'll see you in just a minute Creation Ministries International focuses
on the Bible's first book, Genesis, and the creation/evolution issue. Many of our speakers are scientists with PhDs
who, before joining CMI, were employed in various scientific fields. Creation Ministries speakers go to churches
equipping and encouraging people with the message of the truth and authority of the
Bible and its relevance to the real world.

To locate upcoming CMI events or inquire about booking a speaker into your church, visit CREATION.Com. On this week's episode, we are exploring
the question, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is a very popular question and today
we hope to provide some tips for Christians on how to answer it. That's right, yes. We've ended up with 4 conclusions, and here
they are again: 1.

The universe (including time) can be shown
to have had a beginning. 2. It is unreasonable to believe that something
could begin to exist without a cause. 3.

Therefore the universe requires a cause. 4. Since God has no beginning in time, He doesn't
need a cause. There we go.

OK, so we also said there are two ways to
refute an argument intellectually: 1) Show that it is logically invalid or 2) Show that
at least one of the premises is false. So, let's look at the first one: Is the
argument valid? A valid argument is one where it is impossible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity doesn't depend on the
truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. So, the form of the argument here is valid;
it's of the same form as, for example: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale;
therefore Moby Dick has a backbone.

So, the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute
one or both of the premises. OK, so now let's ask, are the premises true? There are 2 of them there, number 1
and number 2 in the list. Let's look at the first one: Does the universe
have a beginning? Some have promoted an idea called the Oscillating
Universe Theory, which includes the notion that the universe had no beginning. So, what is the Oscillating Universe Theory? It's an idea that combines the Big Bang
(that most of you, I'm sure, have heard of) with what's called a Big Crunch, and
that's not a candy bar (though it might make a good candy bar) and this is part of
a never ending, never beginning cycle.

The theory proposes that the universe could
collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang. It would pass through the phases of expansion
(Big Bang) and the phases of contraction (Big Crunch). If that's the case, then the Universe that
we live in right now, the one we see around us, exists between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. Right.

So, these Oscillating universe ideas were
popularized by atheists, like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, to avoid the notion
of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as we just mentioned, the Laws of Thermodynamics
undercut that argument, because an oscillating universe cannot get around those laws. Yeah, it's not going to do that. Each one of these hypothetical cycles, or
oscillations, would exhaust more and more usable energy.

This means every cycle would be larger and
longer and slower than the previous one (less energy), so looking back in time there would
be smaller and smaller higher energy cycles. So, the multicycle model could have an infinite
future, ending with a heat death, that we mentioned already, but it can only have a
finite past. It had a beginning. Even that model.

That's right. There are other problems with this too. There are many lines of evidence showing that
there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place. And according to the best estimates, the universe
only has about half the mass needed for the theoretical re-contraction.

This includes all luminous and non-luminous
matter, as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to the total mass of the universe. In addition to that, there's no known mechanism
that would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical 'big crunch'. As Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained,
even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, "There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch." So, when you get off the paper and into the
real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that's
the end. So, this attempt to get around premise 1 (that
the universe had a beginning) doesn't work.

So premise 1 stands, and we'll look at the
other one when we get back Many people think that Charles Darwin first
thought of the idea of natural selection. However, others prior to Darwin described
the concept, although they sometimes used slightly different terminology. For instance, Carl Linnaeus, the creationist
'father of taxonomy' wrote of a 'struggle for survival' in nature. Similarly, James Hutton wrote about the concept
of natural selection.

Probably the most influential character was
Edward Blyth, an English chemist and zoologist who wrote major articles on natural selection
two decades before Darwin published the Origin of Species. Darwin differed in trying to use the concept
of natural selection to promote the idea of unlimited change. However, modern studies of natural selection
have revealed that it is limited. It can only select between variations that
already existit is incapable of producing the new genetic information required for true
evolutionary change to occur, such as growing feathers on a reptile.

Natural selection is not evolution. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website, CREATION.Com. OK our subject this week is about the question,
"If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is a popular question that even children
in Sunday School struggle with. But, we've been unpacking the answer to
the question in a lot more detail than the average child would normally understand.

Part of the reason is that the content for
this week's show is not from "Creation" magazine, which is where the content normally
comes from, but this time it came from our other magazine publication, "The Journal
of Creation". "Creation" magazine is our family magazine
and it's in its 40th year this year, 2018, is the 40th year of the magazine. The magazine has been changing lives all around
the world since 1978. Its faith-building content shows people that
the Bible really is true, right from the very first verse, even in an area of Scripture
where many people think it's definitely not true: Genesis 1-11, where the details
of creation and a global flood are recorded.

That's the family magazine. "The Journal of Creation" is where you
can read cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research papers by Bible-believing scientists from
all over the world. And the article on which today's show is
based was originally published in the Journal. Maybe that's why it's a wee bit more technical
than our usual show.

But we're going through this slowly, so
hopefully most of you can keep up. For details, you can read the article at creation.Com/whomadegod OK. Now, let's get to the second premise we
were discussing. Just for review let's see the 4 statements again.

There they are. Now let's focus on number 2, you can see
it there. And to get around that one you would have
to deny the concept of cause and effect, which, I mean that sounds ridiculous, but some physicists
assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause and effect principle and can produce
something from nothing. For example, Bible skeptic Paul Davies writes:
" spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition.

Particles can appear out of nowhere without
specific causation  Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out
of nothing." No, this is a gross misapplication of quantum
mechanics. Yes, it is. Quantum mechanics never produces something
out of nothing. Davies himself even admits on the previous
page of his article that his scenario, quote, 'should not be taken too seriously.' That's good advice.

Theories that the universe resulted from a
quantum fluctuation have to assume that there was something to fluctuate. Their 'quantum vacuum' is a lot of matter-antimatter
potential, not 'nothing'. And it has to be 'fluctuating' somewhere
not nowhere. Now we asked Dr Jonathan Sarfati who wrote
the article that today's show is based on, we asked him about this because his own doctoral
thesis included practical research regarding quantum mechanics.

We asked him the following, "Some physicists
assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something
from nothing. Is that true? Well, I have plenty of theoretical and practical
experience at quantum mechanics from my doctoral thesis work. For example, my specialty is Raman spectroscopy. This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

Light comes in discrete energy packets or photons. Also, molecules vibrate in discrete energy
amounts as well. Raman spectroscopy shines laser light on to
a sample and some of the light scatters back at a different frequency. That's because certain amounts of a photon
energy are absorbed to set the molecules vibrating.

From the wave number and intensity of the
spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds
causing the bands. All of this is testable and repeatable science. Anyone else should get the same Raman spectra
under the same conditions. That is, these quantum mechanical effects
really do have a cause.

They don't come from nothing! If I really thought that, then I may as well
burn my PhD thesis and all the spectroscopy journals should quit. OK, so no quantum mechanics does not violate
cause and effect. And here's another thing, if there is no
cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time. Why was it a universe instead of say, a banana or cat? This universe can't have any properties
to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties
until it actually came into existence! OK, so according to science the universe can't
come from nothing.

Let's tackle the last one, a rather desperate
tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic, a God-centred, conclusion. And that is to assert that the universe being
created in time is simply 'incoherent'. If it's incoherent then we don't need
to think about it apparently. But we need to explain that a little bit more.

Right. So, Paul Davies, who we heard from before,
correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe,
it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began because that would
have to be 'in time'. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened 'before' the universe
began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe's beginning.

Wow! The Christian philosopher and debater William
Lane Craig revealed a hole in Davies philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion
of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant gave the example of a weight
resting on a cushion, it rests while simultaneously causing a depression in the cushion. Craig explains creation like this: The first
moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation simultaneously coming
into being.

Lastly some such skeptics claim that all this analysis
is tentative, because that's the nature of science. So, this can't be used to prove creation
by God. But you can't have it both ways: skeptics
like to say that the Bible is wrong because of science, but if science appears to be more
consistent with the Bible, then, well, science is tentative anyway. Oh yeah, OK, it's just a copout.

So, let's review what we've said. We've been looking at the question, If God
created the universe, then who created God? And the answer is, God has always existed. Something must be eternal, either the universe,
or God. And the universe cannot be eternal, so the
only thing that makes sense logically, is that God has always existed.

And we'll be right back What are the theological consequences of adding
'millions of years' to Genesis? How does it impact doctrines such as the Gospel,
sin, the atonement? Refuting Compromise is the most powerful biblical
and scientific defence of a straightforward view of Genesis. Loaded with scientific support for a recent
creation in 6 real days, it demolishes all attempts to twist the biblical text in order
insert 'millions of years', bringing clarity into an area usually mired in confusion. Must reading for Bible college students and
anyone involved in church leadership or teaching. Get your copy at CREATION.Com Welcome back.

Now as we mentioned earlier most of the content
for these programs comes from Creation magazine. Hence the name Creation Magazine LIVE. Many of the main articles from previous issues (back issues) are now online at CREATION.Com The website is a massive database of free,
faith-building information, and it's quite popular. Visitors sometimes send in feedback.

John F. From the Philippines had a question
that is sort of related to today's topic. He wrote, "Hi, I found your site very interesting
it is also one of the best sites to refute evolutionism. I am firm believer in God and the reality
that we are not just a result of chance.

There is a great intelligence behind the universe.
I have this question below: What does creation.Com say about the simulation theory which is gaining evidence? The theory says that the universe is a simulation
and we are living in it." OK. And one of our staff, Shaun Doyle responded,
and here are some highlights from the response, we're not going to get to the whole thing, here are some highlights: "I wouldn't say that it's 'gaining evidence'. People may be talking about it recently in
greater numbers than before because the 17th annual Isaac Asimov Debate at New York's American Museum of Natural History discussed this topic." He continues, "Let's say that we live
in a simulation.

Question: what is a 'simulation'?  If
we are in what can be properly termed a 'virtual world' or a 'simulation', then there
still must be a real world from which the virtual world arises, by the very meaning
of those terms." "Another idea that they talked about was
an infinite regress of simulations within simulations. But for every virtual world, there needs to
be a world from which it arose. As such, if we have an infinite regress of
virtual worlds, we also have an infinite regress of worlds that they arose from." "And ask yourself, what is the simplest
conclusion: that we're on a 5th level simulation, or that we're living in a real world? Clearly the latter. As such, without any evidence for being in
a simulation, we have no reason to suppose that we are in one." That's right, yes.

And then Shaun poses a question worth considering. If we're in a simulation and can't tell
the difference between it and the real world, then our senses and memory must be pretty unreliable. Right? He says this, "why should we consider our
sense perception and memory beliefs generally unreliable? See, to be able to judge them as generally
unreliable, we need some means of doing so. But we can't get outside of our own sense
and memory beliefs to do so! So there's no way to do that apart from
using our sense and memory faculties.

But if we do, we end up assuming the general
reliability of our sense and memory faculties to deny their general reliability. So, such skepticism about the reality of the
physical world by and large ends up having to presume what it tries to deny." That's fun! Wow! To read the entire response you can go to
creation.Com/simulator. You know, that's really pretty far out there. Imagining alternate realities and so on.

But this is where some evolutionists are going, isn't it? Yes, and they imagine, for example, multiple
universes to try and explain why this one happens to fits us so well. That's right. Even though there's no evidence of other universes. Even though there's no evidence, yes.

It couldn't have been designed just for
us, could it? No! God-forbid if that happened! You know what, creation.Com/free-mag  if
you go there you can view a free digital issue of the magazine. You can flip through it, if you like it, subscribe. Again, the information in the magazine is
what this show is based on. If you've enjoyed this show, we'll see
you next week..