Fri 20 Mar 2009
Kreeft on “Who made God?”
Posted by Darren under Apologetics , Atheism , Faith , God , Naturalism , Philosophy , Skeptics
I was surprised when, in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins dismisses the Cosmological Argument by asking the title question: “Who made God?” Here’s how Peter Kreeft briefly responds to the question:
The question “If God made everything, who made God?” is like asking “Who made circles square?” It assumes a self-contradiction: that an uncreated Creator is a created creature. It extends the law about changing things -that every change needs a cause- beyond its limits, to the unchanging Source of change. God does not need a cause, or a maker, because he is not made or changed. He changes other things, but is not himself changed by anything. There is nothing that comes to be in him, nothing that needs a cause for its coming-into-being. (Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 105)
So essentially, Kreeft suggests that the question commits a category error; it overextends the general law that “things that exist require a maker” from the physical, created world, to the non-physical uncreated God.
A further question that may arise: “If God can be ‘uncreated & unchanging’, why not the universe too?” The answer would be that we have good reasons to believe that the universe is not eternal, as per the Cosmological Argument (including at least scientific and philosophical reasons), while no such restrictions would apply to God.

March 28th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Kreeft is quick with his words and very impressive. But the question I keep coming back to is: Why does God require faith and not just faith in people or in goodness or love, but why does God want certain set of beliefs (Christ) to motivate us?
Without a world that needs faith, you have certainty, and without certainty, there is no free will. OK, so faith is the only way to experience God in a world with free will. But why only faith in specific set of ideas?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Hi Joe, thanks for your comments!
I guess it depends how we define “faith”. If faith is belief in something that is not warranted by good reasons, then it is mere belief; aka, blind faith.
The kind of faith that I mean when I use the word (such as in the title of this blog, heh) is more like belief in something that, while not provable to the same degree as 2+2=4, is still based on good reasons; faith being trust in something trustworthy.
In terms of my own faith, I wouldn’t say that I ultimately have faith (trust) in a specific set of ideas; rather, those ideas describe a person[al God], whom after learning about, I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know. A person is not saved by accepting a certain set of ideas per se, rather in accepting the gift that God is offering us as necessarily described by certain ideas.
I don’t know if that makes much sense, but that’s how I think about it. Thoughts? It’s kind of late so I may not have phrased this as eloquently as I would’ve liked.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
After rethinking, my question is slightly different. But first, let me say that I am a Christian for many years and am not in crisis – that I know of.
Why does God find faith pleasing, especially in the face of doubt or hardship or darkness? Of course God wants relationship with us. Of course we need relationship with God. But what is it about faith, which I would define as knowledge/belief of God without direct proof or certainty,… what is it about faith that is so important to God. Why does He want us to believe without seeing? “Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe”
Why would He reply to Mother Theresa’s life and work and faith with a feeling of “nothing” for so many years?
You see, it is not just faith and transformation that God seems to want but the “going out on a limb” for Him that seems to please Him.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
God is a wonderful energy and force. He is just Is. He is the keyword AM and is infinite. One can no more ask who made God than ask, can you see time, or who made time? God, like time, is a consequential force made within Himself. He is all powerful and simply the Force. Can one this, can one that? Can one see a maker of a Maker? Not hardly and not at all.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:32 am
Who says no such restrictions apply to a deity? Why shouldn’t they and what authority does saying a deity requires no such restrictions hold?
Do no such restrictions apply because we haven’t discovered them?
What evidence is there to support that God is unchangeable or that God is the only creator ever? Why does what Kreeft say have any legitimacy when it holds no basis in reality, has no tangible or recordable evidence, and is only backed up by extravagant claims without extravagant evidence?
The evidence that our universe had a “cause” is there (well, the evidence that it hasn’t always existed is there)…the evidence that our universe was “caused” by a deity or supernatural being however is not there, so why is that assumption automatically okay to make and can it be incorrect?
May 21st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Jon, thanks for your comments!
I’m not sure it’s true that “the evidence that our universe was “caused” by a deity or supernatural being however is not there”. It seems to me that if God exists (which I find reasonable based on various arguments like cosmological, design, moral, and personal experience) and the universe exists (granted), that God would be the best-fit explanation for how the universe came into being.
William Lane Craig explores the topic here:
Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder
That leads us to say, what kind of properties would the cause for our universe must possess, which Craig briefly addresses here (video):
What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have?
I’ve written my own post on the subject here:
http://www.whyfaith.com/2006/11/11/what-about-natural-theology/
October 10th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Domestic news…
[...]Why Faith » Kreeft on “Who made God?”[...]…
November 6th, 2011 at 1:27 am
asics gel nimbus 13…
[...]Why Faith » Kreeft on “Who made God?”[...]…
November 6th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Excellent post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful information specially the ultimate section
I take care of such information a lot. I was seeking this certain info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
May 11th, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Hi every one, here every person is sharing these knowledge, therefore it’s pleasant to read this weblog, and I used to visit this webpage daily.