This is a classic attack of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is however, based on the misrepresentation of the argument. The argument does NOT say that everything that exists must have a cause. It says that everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause. Since there cannot be an actual infinite number of causes, there must be an uncaused first cause. Since time, space, and matter came into existence at the big bang, then the first cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial since something can't cause itself. So the short answer to who created God, is "nothing".
However, the Kalam Cosmological Argument only contains two actual premises: 1) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause, 2) the universe began to exist, 3)Therefore the universe must have a cause.
Notice there is no "therefore God exists" in this argument. It is merely proof of a cause. There are other steps to take to get to "therefore God exists", and these are usually the most vulnerable to attacking of the premises.
I get it. I buy it. The whole shebang (no pun intended :)) from a singularity to expansion via inflation to the modern universe we see today but What came Before? The Big Bang theory seeks to explain during & after the event but not prior to it. No matter what school of thought you come from religious or science, neither can explain what existed before time & space as we know it. Mind boggling. Is it that our human 'super computer' brains are not capable of such comprehension? Or maybe its all magic :) but then same conundrum where did the magic come from? We are so used to linear timelines that we expect everything to have a beginning & an end.
God = the Eternal Supernatural Universe.
Note: the universe is defined as everything that exists. Not merely a dimension of existence.
If the universe is everything that exist that logically implies that there is nothing outside the universe. If there is nothing outside the universe there are only two options.
A)The universe came out of nothing.
B)The universe is eternal (the Big Bang still applies in the sense that all celestial objects we can observe came from a single source)
Obviously B is the only valid option, but we are not done yet. Now we need to answer what the cause of the uniformity of nature. When it comes to the uniformity of nature we also only have two options.
1)The uniformity nature exists for no reason
2)The uniformity nature is the result of the universe "choosing" to form itself in a certain way without prior restrictions. What we call "natural law" is really just the consistency of the universe's will.
That sounds like God right? So it would seem that pandeism or pantheism have the best explanation for the universe. Pantheism/Pandeism explains why the universe exists at all and why the uniformity of nature exists.
I feel it is far more likely that there is a god who created time itself, and purposefully limited our minds, in order that we would not be able to comprehend such abstract concepts. The idea of living eternally in an afterlife takes on a whole new meaning when we think of God living outside the realms of time. Not only does it explain his creation in that it shows he had no beginning or end because he is not affected by time or by timelines, but it also presents another idea. What if eternity does not mean forever as we know it, but rather the best possible word in our limited language that can describe something we aren't mentally capable of understanding.
I had wonder the same question about how God made the Universe but how did God get here to make everything?So my grandpa being a guy who studies the bible a lot said that in the bible it said a quote that I can't remember but something like "I am what I am"
I've created theories about the universe a lot. One of my theories was that the universe is just the internal framework of an organism, we are all bacteria, and the big bang was just a representation of sex. I got plenty of evidence to back the theory up, but I don't have proof. So I don't believe in any theory, I've made with all of me. I guess everything ends with a question. What came before? I've asked that question a lot before. But maybe sense of time doesn't exist everywhere, as for the fact that time is slower in space. So I guess that leads to many more stimulating questions. I think we should only think about things we can prove. Therefore we'd make more achievable goals, leading to finding the ultimate truth about the universe over time. I feel I'm not really sure if the universe exists anyways. I'm just sure about the mental realm, physical realm, psychological realm, unconscious realm, and dream realm(sleep), as for human science has gathered enough information, and has experimented enough to let me believe this. For now I believe that anything I've sensed with my 5 senses exists. Although, I'm not really sure to believe anything. But believing is fun and essential for life, so I guess I'll give in to the 5 senses, and the human science stuff. But I still don't believe in most complex theories. Overall, I believe that no matter how far we go, everything ends with a question. It seems like life keeps unraveling, as we study more. So really, there is freedom to curiosity.
Similar to Sushovan's idea, time may exist as an immense circle. We perceive time as a straight line going from some point in the distant past to some point in the distant future, but theoretically it could be a circle so big that it only appears to be a straight line. After all, we had thought at one time the earth was flat so maybe time is also curved.
Contrary or in addition to Sushovan's statement, I theorize that the circle of time is not a constant diameter but grows with the size of our universe. It may even be growing at such a rate that will never reach the point it started at. That the diameter of time is increasing at a rate of more than one minute per minute. Just in case you didn't understand that, I will use an analogy. Say your a runner who can run a mile in 4 minutes and are on a track that expands over time. When the runner first leaves the start/finish line, the track is 1/4 mile in diameter but the track is increasing in distance faster then he can run. After one minute of running, instead of being at the start/finish line, the start/finish line is no greater than 1/4 mile away. This would mean that he could never get to where he started so could not begin the next lap. Because we would never reach the point of beginning as long as time continues to grow faster than we we pass through it, there would be no reason time would need to reset to begin again.
There are issues with this theory tho. For instance, the same problem that exists for both the big bang and creation. Cause and effect. Thing is, these can be explained by existing theories such as the big crunch. That eventually, the universe would reach a limit then get pulled back into a singularity by it's own gravitational forces. This too would affect time as it's circle would shrink in size but continue to travel forward.
One could also theorize that time may be actually a spiral. Instead of the one dimensional line or the two dimensional circle, it could even be a three dimensional spiral.
Universe is still a mystery. Not everything is explainable by science/ human. For all those odds we give credit to God.
I am not an atheist, but, even then, I don't find it reasonable to pass the credit of these unanswered questions to God.
Time is even more mysterious. We consider it as linear. May be time it self is running in a circular orbit with a super-huge radius !!
But who knows ?!
Asking "what caused God", is stupid. God is by his very definition uncaused. Now usually the common response is "well if God is uncaused, why can't the universe exist uncaused"? The universe can't be uncaused; because it began to exist. Also, the first premise states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not that whatever exists has a cause. Indeed maintaining such a standard is foolish, for every cause would have to have a preceding one, ad infinitum. But no matter how far back you stretch the domino chain of cause and effect, you still need a first domino to fall without the aid of another domino. An "uncaused" cause.
So those who believe in God or a greater power, tend to see less logic in the "big bang" side of this argument and vice versa. However, both theories leave us questioning what events occurred prior. Consider our universe a place bound by time, and limited knowledge. Although our knowledge is always expanding, it is still very little. Now, imagine a god, being, power (or whatever you desire) with unlimited knowledge. One who is not bound by the same time constraints or anything else of the human nature. What if this "being" chose to create a place such as our earth and separate beings such as us? It had chosen to limit our knowledge, capabilities and even creation of the big bang. Why one would do this though, is the question that I believe will remain unanswered.