If everything must have a cause, then what caused God? In other words, if everything is required to have a beginning, why does that same requirement not apply to God?

Another classic counter-argument put forward by atheists who do not grasp or accept the solid logic of the cosmological argument for the existence of an uncreated Creator is: “OK, if everything has to have a cause, then what is God’s cause?” They claim that if God does not need a creator, then logic dictates that neither does the universe. The self-congratulatory attitude of atheists who pose this flawed question is striking; they seem to believe they have made a profound point, when in fact they have simply misunderstood the first premise of the cosmological argument. Their question is logically baseless, as it rests on a categorical error of definition and a failure to appreciate the strength of the argument establishing the existence of an uncreated Creator. The first premise of the cosmological argument does not assert that everything has a cause for its existence; rather, it states that everything which has a beginning has a cause for its existence—a significantly different claim. If God is understood to be eternal—that is, timeless—then He does not belong to the category of things that begin to exist and thus does not fall under the category of things that require a cause. In other words, something eternal and without a beginning does not need a cause. The Creator, by definition, is uncreated. Therefore, the atheists’ question—“Who created the Creator?”—is logically baseless, as it rests on a categorical error: a misunderstanding of terms, a definitional fallacy, and a failure to appreciate the strength of the argument establishing the existence of an uncreated Creator. Allāh exists necessarily, by the very necessity of His own nature, as a timeless, uncaused, necessarily existent being who initiates the chain of cause and effect. Otherwise, one would be forced to posit an infinite regress of causal explanations, which—as Aquinas famously argued—is metaphysically impossible, for to remove the first cause is to remove all subsequent causes and effects. Therefore, a First Cause must exist, and this is God. It is important to note that affirming Allāh as eternal and uncaused is not a case of special pleading for God, for this is precisely what atheists traditionally claimed about the universe:that it is eternal and uncaused. However, given the now well-established evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning, atheists are backed into the corner of having to affirm that, for no reason whatsoever, the universe simply popped into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing—an obviously absurd proposition. Ironically, although the question “Who created the Creator?” is one of the most misguided and philosophically incoherent questions one could ask, it is one that Richard Dawkins—arguably the world’s most prominent atheist—has repeatedly raised, if not outright championed, in his books, treating it as if it were his most important question of all. On this point, philosopher Michael Ruse observes: ¹

Likewise, Alvin Plantinga—unquestionably one of the leading philosophers of our time—remarked in his review of Dawkins’s The God Delusion: “now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he is a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.’’² In fact, many atheists want nothing to do with Dawkins’s rhetoric. The Revd. Professor Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, reported that many of his atheist colleagues in Oxford and beyond were appalled, as Dawkins makes atheism appear to rest on childish arguments. One of his atheist colleagues at Oxford remarked to him: “don’t judge the rest of us by this [The God Delusion] pseudo-intellectual drivel.’’³ As we have already elaborated, the existence of a contingent, dependent, and temporal universe is in itself sufficient proof that a necessary being exists who brought it into existence. This higher power must be greater than the universe and independent of anything to sustain itself. The Creator, by definition, is uncreated; thus, asking “Who created the Creator?” constitutes a logical fallacy of definitions. On this point, Ibn Taymiyyah stated: “It is known by necessity and by innate human disposition—for all who have a sound innate disposition among the children of Adam—that this question is invalid. It is not possible for the Creator of creation to have a creator. If He had a creator, He would not be the Creator of everything.”⁴ It is not possible for the Creator of creation to have a creator; if He had a creator, then He would Himself be created and therefore could not be the Creator of everything. For all intents and purposes, the inquiry “If God created everything, who created God?” is nonsensical, self-contradictory, and illogical. Asking who created the uncreated Creator is as absurd as asking “Who cooked the cook?” or “Who painted the painter?”—it is effectively a question that translates to “Who created the uncreated?” How can something be created if it is, by definition, uncreated? This question assumes the existence of an entity that is simultaneously created and uncreated, which is a logical impossibility. By definition, Allāh is uncreated. If a god were created, then he would not truly be God, for he would be subordinate to another being who created him. It is self-evident that the laws which govern created beings do not apply to the Creator; rather, He is the One who brought these very laws into existence. Just as someone who invents an electronic device necessarily exists outside of that device, so too does the Creator exist outside of the system He created. When it is said that everything has a Creator, the statement applies to everything that is created—not to the uncreated Creator. Allāh is not confined by time and space as created things are; rather, He is the One who created time and space themselves. If He were limited by them, He could not be God. It is therefore inconceivable for a God who is timeless and beyond space to come into existence, for He is the One who brought time and space into being. Allāh is the First and the Last, the Eternal without beginning and the Everlasting without end, the Self-Existent and the Self-Sufficient. If He were dependent on anything or anyone, He would cease to be God: {that is Allāh, your Lord, the Creator of all things. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. How can you then be deluded ˹from the truth˺?} (Qurʾān 40:62). Allāh offers a description of Himself in His Book, stating: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allāh, the One and Unique; Allāh, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need; He neither begot any nor was He begotten, and none is comparable to Him”} (Qurʾān 112:1–4). The question “If everything must have a beginning, why does the same not apply to God?” is merely an attempt by atheists to unsettle believers and divert attention from the truth of the Law of Cause and Effect, without genuinely addressing it. This objection is rooted in a misunderstanding of what the law actually asserts regarding the universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause; however, Allāh is not a finite, physical being and is therefore not subject to physical laws. The law of causality applies only to physical entities within space and time, whereas Allāh, as their Creator, exists beyond both. In other words, since Allāh is by definition an eternal, non-physical being, He is not subject to the condition of having a beginning. Consequently, the principle of universal causation does not apply to Him, for He is the uncaused Causer—the One who initiated all effects. The conclusion remains unchanged: the Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.