All scientists and theologians can do is mount their best possible arguments and try to convince each other and everyone else what caused the universe we perceive to be out there. That's right, perceive. As a sociologist, that is all man does - perceive his reality which is a social reality.
Man takes in information, processes it and through social interaction concludes what it is likely to be; but, not absolutely as man cannot know anything absolutely. Through experience, social experience in a place, man can and does perceive himself and the world round him/her and his/her place in it. We come to conclusions as to what is and what is not and what it means. Yes, meaning is everything and it usurps just about anything you or I can consider as concretely real. It means that when you or I perceive something to be real it happens only through social interaction. In that condition, what we gain in perception we also gain in meaning. When something has meaning and it does only because of social dynamics at work in social interaction, then it becomes something concrete in our mind. It has shape!
For us, the only time it changes shape is when we have additional social interactions whereby social dynamics (subordination/domination) change and we conclude different meaning and when that happens, the shape of something in our mind changes.
This is true for all human groups. That is why the shape of something even something abstract like 'freedom' has a different shape for you and different for me (if we are of different groups) and or any other person outside of one group and or from another. This is true for all things, all ideas and beliefs. Science is only agreement reality and one can say the same about having a Creator.
What we can all agree on is that both science and believers in a God Creator require information; and, that such information has an absolute point of departure 'source' or what we have to conclude which is its existence. If information is treated as real, it has a source. Man does not think of something without social interaction and in our social interaction we find who we are and are not. Why do that at all? That is the question. If we were just plants or lower life forms, we would not ask that kind of question. But, we are not such life forms. Why should we be such life forms, the kind that asks questions? If this were a world organized by itself it would not need anything higher than itself to continue its organization.
It can be argued that man is not higher than a self organizing universe and if that is the case, then man would be a mere animal... so, why does he seek to know his place in the universe? This means that the universe is much more than just a cosmos. If it were, man as we know him/her would not be necessary in such a universe asking questions.
Our perceiving can be argued as just demonstrated concerning 'perception'. But, fundamentally, information has a source. We cannot always pinpoint the source but we know it exists necessarily; otherwise we would not seek its source nor would we be able to. Which leads us to perception of God the Creator. So many ask if God created the universe then who created God.
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical. So, a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, people and especially Christians should use the following reasoning:
- Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
- The universe has a beginning.
- Therefore the universe has a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
- 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
- 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his mind. Why? Because, we as created beings understand fundamentally that we were caused to be. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
As a sociologist, this is the one truth that most scientists ignore and that is if cause and effect were denied, then all information has no source and has no meaning. But, you say that man gives meaning. I am not saying he does not... but his/her idea of what something means is acquired through social interaction which has a source as Einstein said, There is no such thing as no thing." That means that someone/thing is providing us with information. The Creator designed the program and its up and running. All we have to do is follow and be steadfast. In this way, we can be saved as in uploaded... if the program rejects the creator, then why should the creator keep it. It would likely be considered a corrupt program and be permanently deleted.
The Song of Trust in God's Provision ~ "The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You" ~ Isaiah 26:4.
'Bolded' text * Source ~http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god