Who Made God?

The question “Who made God?” is a frequent retort to arguments for theism. On the surface, it appears to be a reasonable, perhaps even unanswerable, counterargument to God as Creator.

However, upon closer inspection, the objection collapses. This paper aims to demonstrate that the question “Who made God?” rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical definition of God.

Who Made God?

The question of who made God is not a new one (though it is often thought so by atheists). The most recent and most cogent formulation of the question comes from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell.

Drawing extensively from another English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Russell writes, “I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions [the existence of God] very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: ‘My father taught me that the question, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, “Who made God?” ’ That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” (Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. Simon and Schuster, 1957).

Bertrand Russell’s reference to the “argument of the First Cause” requires an explanation. The first cause argument is one of the oldest and most prominent philosophical arguments for the existence of God, formulated by both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

It can be summarized as follows: Within the order of contingent things, everything requires an efficient cause to bring it into being. Furthermore, it is impossible for a thing to be its own efficient cause, as this would mean that it existed before itself. Therefore, for anything to exist, there must be a first cause that is not itself caused. This, by definition, would be a necessary cause which Catholicism asserts is God.

Still, to properly address Bertrand Russell’s “Who made God?” objection, it is necessary to explain what Catholic theology means by the term God.

What Is God?

Pope Benedict once wrote that the God of Catholicism is the God of philosophy. (Ratzinger, Joseph. Introduction to Christianity. Ignatius Press, 2004). The Pope’s observation is an excellent point of departure for answering the question of who or what God is.

Over three hundred years before the advent of Christianity, the Greek philosopher Aristotle conceived of God as a being independent of the universe, as the final cause of all motion (for Aristotle, motion is equivalent to change) in Nature, as Prime Mover and Unmoved Mover of the universe (the cause of change in the universe). Building on Aristotle’s formulation, Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

Synthesizing these formulations, God is the uncaused cause of being and existence itself. In turn, God is pure spirit (John 4:24), infinite, eternal, and unchangeable (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 202). 

Nevertheless, it should be noted that since human beings do not fully understand the essence or nature of God, and since a definition limits its subject, which cannot be done of an infinite being, an essential definition of God is, in objective fact, impossible.  

Having sought to explain what Catholicism means by God, I endeavor to show why the question, “Who made God?” is a product of faulty reasoning.

Why Russell’s Argument Fails

At first glance, the question “Who made God?” seems reasonable. If everything requires a cause, then asking who made God is a legitimate question. After all, it is true that everything within the order of contingent things requires a cause. It is here, however, that Russell’s objection fails.

God, by definition, is not a created or contingent being. In fact, God is not within the order of beings at all; He is utterly transcendent. That is to say that God is ipsum esse subsistens or subsistent being itself. As such, God stands outside of or independent from His creation and, if follows, from any causal chain.

However, because Bertrand Russell misunderstands the first cause argument, he begins with the mistaken assumption that everything, including God, requires an efficient cause. This conclusion is neither logically possible nor is it the claim made in the first cause argument.

The reason why Russell’s conclusion is illogical is that if everything, including God, required an efficient cause, there would be an infinite regress of such causes. The result of an infinite regress would be that no secondary or subsequent causes could exist. A train car analogy is often used to illustrate the impossibility of infinite regress. Imagine an infinite number of train cars coupled together, each pulling the next car. Without a locomotive, the train, no matter how long, cannot move.

For this reason, the first cause argument posits that everything in the created order requires a cause. Put simply, if something came into existence at a certain point in time – had a beginning – then there needs to be a cause or explanation for why it came to be. (This aligns with Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.) However, since God (by definition) exists eternally, it is illogical to speak of a cause of God’s existence. It is for this reason that the first cause argument applies only to those things that are created.

Conclusion

It is self-evident that if something does not have to exist, there must be an explanation for why it does exist. However, if something must exist – if it is a necessary being, like God – then it does not need further explanation. The things we perceive in the universe, including space and time themselves, appear to have had a beginning, and so they need a cause; a reason why they began in the first place.

In the same way, each particular thing (including humans) in the universe does not seem to be necessary. Each could not exist. Therefore, we need an explanation for why each exists.

Catholicism asserts that God is that explanation. Additionally, as a necessary being that exists outside of time, the question “Who created God?” is nonsensical, because it amounts to asking “Who created an uncreated being?”