If God Created Everything, Then Who Created God?

#god #firstcause #uncreated #causality #theology #philosophy #scripture #bible #beginning #infinity #creator #uncaused #christianity #apologetics

[@eagleclaw1179]

The answer is in your first statement of your question
“If God created everything…”
In this statement God is defined as the first cause of everything, and by definition is uncreated

[@ornitorincodigenova4260]

Since there must be a first cause we have two possibilities
1: Matter simply existed/Whatever matterless element that makes matter existed
2: An intelligent being existed
Since we don't have any proof for either Occam's Razor law says we must pick the simpler solution out of the two until some proof show up in favor of either of them and there starts the debate on which is easier because
1: Matter simply existing requires one less step than an intelligent being able to create existing beforehand and there is no reason why it shouldn't
2: An intelligent being (obviously assuming it isn't made of any sort of matter since it brings other questions up) existing is simpler because it doesn't require physical explanations and works outside of the material world
And there we run into speculation and opinions, if you ask me the former is the most plausible, but as I said it's really a matter of opinions.

[@Empowered126]

Are you saying “matterless elements” are more plausible than a creator?

[@ornitorincodigenova4260]

@@Empowered126 Yes. They are both matterless, but one of the two is not intelligent and isn't omnipotent (it's impossible to be, I just use the term because it's the most used in religion, so for the sake of simplicity), so in my opinion matterless elements are more plausible, but as I said this is highly speculative since we don't have a clue of what happened at the (non) time.

[@ornitorincodigenova4260]

@@Empowered126 Also, I would like to point out that you used a logical fallacy, I'm not saying you did that on purpose, you used an appeal to incredulity (or appeal to common sense), my idea to you seemed absurd and so you concluded that it is indeed absurd and crazy (nothing against the conclusion, my idea could be absurd), yet you didn't use any argument to prove it wrong, you essentially said "It feels absurd, so it's wrong". Again, I'm not saying you did that on purpose, but be careful, an argument is stronger when it doesn't involve easily recognizable logical fallacies, in a debate a person could point this out and say that your conclusion is invalid (This is called a fallacy fallacy, the conclusion could be corrected even if the reason behind the why is poorly argumented by whoever is speaking/writing).