Does God really exist? How can we know? If God made everything, who made God?
In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.
So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely “Where did God come from?”
The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end—He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.
Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator?
The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible.
There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding .
The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of God’s existence are:
The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are:
The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that “verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.”
Matthew G. Easton
How to recognize intelligence
Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence—a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design—the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence—in the man-made objects all around us.
Similarly, in William Paley’s famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position?
Design in living things
Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded:
‘Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. …It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.’
The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states:
‘We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.’
Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation that God created all.
However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added):
‘All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind… It has no mind… It does not plan for the future… it is the blind watchmaker.’
Selection and design
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selectionand mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.
Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.
But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!
Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.
Can mutations produce new information?
Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:
‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.’
‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.’
‘The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.’
Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.
[For further information, see: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer]
Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called ‘biochemical machines’. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can’t function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.
Since life is built on these ‘machines’, the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term ‘irreducible complexity’ in describing such biochemical ‘machines’.
‘…systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.’
Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing ‘machinery’ to start with when he states:
‘The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem.’
A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex ‘machines’ of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start!
A greater problem still!
Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like ‘BAT’.So given long time periods, why couldn’t even more complex information arise by chance?
However, what would the word ‘BAT’ mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!
In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn’t work either.
The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the ‘letters’ in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those ‘machines’ that needs to be fully-formed or life won’t work.
Can information arise from non-information?
Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:
‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.’
‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’
What is the source of the information?
We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.
However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless .
Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible indicates when we read, ‘In the beginning God .’? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.
So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?
The answer seems obvious, so why don’t all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers:
‘Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words . they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.’
The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment.
But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord.
[Watch The HOPE on-line (streaming video)]
So who created God?
By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed—no one created God. He is the self-existing one—the great ‘I am’ of the Bible.19 He is outside of time; in fact, He created time.
You might say, “But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can’t understand it.”
We read in the book of Hebrews, ‘But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him’ (Hebrews 11:6).
But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.
Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see?
Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.
Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your ‘receiver’ (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.
Learn more about God and his plan for your life
Adapted from author Ray Comfort
See these information sources for evidence of God and the accuracy of His Word…
The Christian faith is not a blind faith; it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse:
‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
For a more in-depth article, read: Who created God?
Who created God?
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?
So 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? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
There are only two ways to refute an argument:
Show that it is logically invalid
Show that at least one of the premises is false.
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 does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: 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.
Are the premises true?
1. Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy.
This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2
Also, 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, i.e., the universe is open.
According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3
Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch.
Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe.
Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7
As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.
Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.
2. Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, 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.9
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.
Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.
If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. 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.
Is creation by God rational?
A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies 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. 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 universes beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:
The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A final thought
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God’s eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort
More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adams sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.
Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
Craig, W.L. online article “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe” http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976).
How does archaeology conclusively demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions?
Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments.
When compared to other religious books, the titles, and events mentioned in the Bible; and the language and literary formats used to compose the Bible.
Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology (i.e. misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible.
How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life?
The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The places, and events of the Bible are real.
What God’s Word?
Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God.
These discoveries fall into three categories:
Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.
The Bible’s message of a salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.
Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
Where did Cain get his wife?
We don’t even know her name, yet she was discussed at the wife in history?
Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.
For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about  lawyer Clarence Darrow.
The world’s press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the biblical record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the biblical record is indefensible!
The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book ContactContact,” which was based on Sagan’s book, also used it.
In the book, the fictional character Ellie could not get answers about 
Sagan cleverly used common questions—such as “Who was Cain’s wife?”—questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended.
Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions! And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are lacking in the teaching of 1 Peter 3:15).
Why is it important?
Many skeptics have claimed that, for New Testament doctrines depend.
Defenders of the Genesis 4:1-5:5.)
Before we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel.
The first man
Therefore, even as through one man Romans 5:12).
We read in God did not start by making a whole group of men.
The sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants.
Since return to God!
Because a man brought Romans 3:23). What is the solution?
The Last Adam
pay the penalty for sin:
“For since by a man came 
Since the Bible describes all human beings as gospel could not be explained or defended.
The Hebrews 2:11-18).
Thus, only descendants of the first man saved.
Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the Genesis 2:7).
This also means that Adam’s descendants.
The first woman
In Eve—she was the first woman.
marriage of one man to one woman.
Also, in animals, he could not find a mate—there was no one of his kind.
All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Eve’s descendants.
If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including gospel and all that it teaches.
Cain’s brothers and sisters
Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.
Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.
During their lives, Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”
The Genesis 1:28).
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!
We are not told when marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.
But what about God’s Laws?
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.
Remember that Moses laws that forbade such marriages.
Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be d