Who Created God?
The question in the title is an objection raised by atheists against the theistic explanation that “everything has a cause, and the cause of the universe and everything within it is God.” Atheists extend this explanation and argue: “If everything has a cause, then God must also have a cause. If God created everything, then who created God?”
At this point, there is a misunderstanding in the explanation given by believers. When believers say, “everything has a cause, and the cause of the universe and everything within it is God,” what they actually mean is this: “Everything within the universe has a creator,” or “everything that is contingent has a creator,” or “everything that has a beginning in time has a creator.” According to this view, God is not within the universe, His existence is not contingent but necessary, and He is not a being that began to exist. Therefore, the question “what is the cause of God?” cannot be meaningfully asked. This is considered a category mistake. God is not a being that can be created, because He is timeless, eternal, and necessary.
We can illustrate this category mistake with examples. Suppose we say, “someone wrote this book.” If another person asks, “who wrote the cover of the book?” this would be a mistaken question, because a cover is not something written but something made. Or if we say, “this painting was made by a painter,” and someone asks, “who drew the canvas?” this is again a category mistake, because a canvas is not something drawn but something woven. If you say, “I wrote this computer program,” and someone asks, “who wrote you?” that too is a category error, because you are not a program that can be written. Likewise, since God is not a being of the kind that is created, the question is categorically mistaken.
One might still ask: “If God created everything, then God must also have a reason for existing—how did God come to exist?” However, for someone who believes that God is the creator of everything, this question is incoherent. After first accepting God as the creator of all things, to then treat Him as something created and search for a cause of the Creator directly contradicts the basic principles of reason.
Analytic truths are propositions whose truth is contained within their definitions and can be established through logical analysis without the need for observation or experience (a priori). Statements such as “a triangle has three sides,” “a dog is an animal,” or “all bachelors are unmarried” are examples of this kind. In such propositions, the predicate does not add new information but simply clarifies the definition. These are grounded in the principle of non-contradiction and are rational. Questions like “why does a triangle have three sides?” or “why is a dog an animal?” cannot be meaningfully asked because of the nature of these propositions. Similarly, for God to be God, He must be uncreated and without anything preceding Him. His attributes belong necessarily to Him. If God were created, then what we are referring to would not be God. If something existed before God, then again, it would not be God. If every God had another God before Him, then a first cause necessary for existence would never be established.
If everything were caused by something else in an infinite chain, nothing would ever come into existence. This would result in a meaningless and endless regress. Consider the classic examples often given:
Imagine someone observing the last wagon of a long train and trying to understand why it is moving. Someone explains that it is being pulled by the wagon in front of it. The same question is then asked about that wagon, and so on. If this continues, when we reach the locomotive, the observer may still ask what is pulling it. However, at that point, it must be understood that the locomotive has the capacity to move itself. The question “what is pulling the locomotive?” cannot be asked. Without a locomotive that moves without being pulled, motion would not occur—there would be no train.
If someone asks how chocolate is made, you show them machines and production lines. If they then ask where those machines were made, you point to factories. If they continue asking how those factories were made, eventually you must refer to human beings who possess knowledge, power, and will—and thus end the chain of questioning. God is the cause that ends all chains of questioning. He has no cause, and there must be no cause for Him; otherwise, nothing would ever come into existence.
A soldier receives orders from a superior, who receives orders from a higher-ranking officer, and so on, until we reach the head of state. It is not meaningful to ask, “from whom does the head of state receive orders?” Once there is no higher authority, the question itself becomes meaningless.
At this point, it is important to make a clarification. Just as there are answers to the question in the title, there are also many arguments for the existence of God. Throughout history, many thinkers in philosophy and religion have presented such arguments. These arguments aim to persuade the intellect. However, they are not sufficient on their own to turn a person toward God. Turning toward God requires intention and sincerity. After this turning, faith finds its place within a person’s inner world and begins to develop. Most importantly, a deep sense of clarity and fulfillment in belief emerges after this turning. The relationship with God is based on a personal, intuitive, and experiential depth. The conviction that arises from this personal experience is far stronger than the satisfaction gained from hearing many arguments.
Kant states that the aim of morality is to reach the “highest good.” He argues that a person who lives in accordance with moral law (a sense of duty) becomes virtuous and thereby deserves happiness. Kant’s emphasis on moral living and the connection between virtue and inner peace can be seen as related to what has been discussed above. In other words, belief in God is not merely a system constructed through proofs and arguments. Arguments may guide a person to the threshold of belief, but they cannot bring one inside. Likewise, it is not the case that everyone deeply engaged in science will necessarily become a believer. Faith is a matter of will and intention, but it is also something that takes root through lived experience. Belief is not merely intellectual assent—it is a way of living.