What caused God? What/Who made God? What created God?: The most common atheistic objection to the Cosmological Argument for God's existence is one of the worst objections in the history of thought. Dramatic evidence for Jime's Iron Law about the atheist's irrationality

 

Typical atheist genius asking the "What caused God?" question

Just watch these 2 shorts videos (specially the first one):

As shown in the first video, some atheists really think that the "What caused God?" is a good objection to the cosmological argument. But how and why exactly asking for something's cause constitutes a valid refutation of an argument for that something's existence? Just think carefully about it.

Suppose that you argue that "The HIV virus causes AIDS" and try to defend that view appealing to the medical evidence (virus isolation, antibody tests, molecular cloning, statistical correlation between AIDS and HIV, PCR and viral load tests, etc.) for example. Then, an atheist genius comes and says "Well, I have a knockdown objection to the argument that HIV exists and is the cause of AIDS: What caused the HIV?"

Do you think the the above question, by itself, refute your argument for the existence of HIV, or that it causes AIDS? Obviously not, since the existence of HIV causing AIDS doesn't depend on HIV itself having or not having a cause, let alone on you being able to explain or identify the cause of it. Perhaps other viruses cause it. Perhaps it was created in a laboratory by mad scientists. Perhaps it is an endogenous retrovirus. Perhaps it comes from another planet or whatever. Perhaps and per impossibile (a Quentin Smith's fan would suggest) it comes from "Nothingness" or Non-Being. The point is that asking for something's cause does NOTHING to refute an argument for the existence of such something.

Note that the same example could be provided regarding the universe. Suppose that you are arguing for the existence of the physical universe. In that case, is the question "What caused the universe?" a valid objection for your argument that a physical universe exists? Obviously not, since your argument for the existence of the universe doesn't depend on you being able to specify the cause of such universe. The question does nothing to refute or undermine your argument for the existence of the universe.

As an objection against the existence of God, the question "What caused God?" does nothing to refute it. At most, it prompts us to inquiry further about whether God is caused or uncaused, and if caused, what would have caused Him, but God's existence is not in question.

But the atheist question is based on the assumption that the cosmological argument is based on the premise "Everything has a cause". Note that on that premise, the question "What caused God?" is fully justified, because if everything that exists has a cause, and God exists, then God has a cause. But note that even in this case, God's existence is not refuted. At most, what is in question is God's cause, not God's existence. The conclusion of the cosmological argument, namely, that God exists, is not affected by the question.

But the real problem with the atheist question is that it is just IGNORANT. No sophisticated defender of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy has ever defended such argument on the grounds that "Everyhting has a cause", because they fully know that such ridiculous premise is false and lead to an infinite regress. 

Philosopher of religion Edward Feser explains:

In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended

Let's take just one of Feser's examples: Philosopher William Lane Craig.  People familiar with philosophy of religion, or simply with my blog, is familiar with Craig's kalam cosmological argument:

The first premiss of the argument is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", which is a theologically neutral statement of the principle of causality. Note that this principle is fully compatible with something existing eternally and hence uncaused. The principle doesn't say that everything has a cause, but that everything which BEGINS TO EXIST (or comes into being) has cause, which is fully compatible with the existence of some things which never began to exist (e.g. numbers or propositions, like thought by some Platonistic philosophers; or God which is thought to be a necessary being, and hence an eternal one).

Amazingly, as you can see in the first video, an atheist clearly affected by Jime's Iron Law keeps pressing the question "What caused God?" after Craig's lectures on the kalam. Clearly, this atheist didn't pay attention to the logical formulation of the argument. He seems, in an autistic-like fashion, to be fixed with the "What caused God?" question without realizing that it is based on a inept misunderstanding of the argument.

I'm absolutely sure that such atheist really think his question is a knock-down argument against theism. Jime' Iron Law implies that some atheists, like that guy, are intellectually incapable, intrinisically impaired to understand rationally the difference between:

-Everything has a cause (=everything that exists has a cause)

-Everything which BEGINS TO EXIST has cause.

For atheist geniuses like the guy in the video, the above two propositions are identical, and hence that "What caused God?" objection is valid in both cases.

There is something in the mind of atheists which prevent them to differenciate between the above two propositions. They simply cannot grasp it.

Perhaps you think that the above confusion only exists in sophomoric or ignorant young atheists in college campuses. WRONG.

You can see examples, analyzed by me, of professional atheist writers (including professional philosophers) commiting exactly the same fallacy:

-Michael Martin

-Theodore Schick Jr.

-Sam Harris

It is deeply dissapointing to read professional philosophers, who should know more, to engage in sophomoric modes of argumentation. I have not respect at all for atheists like that.

But it tells us a lot about the intellectual limitations and mindset of some atheists.