Who made God?

[OzSpen]

calvin here,
To others that might be interested:
If I were placed in a hypothetical position where I was afraid to offer the Bible up front, I might say.
"My God is the only true God and beside Him there is no other"
or perhaps
"My God just is, He exists, and there is no other known to exist apart from Him"..(I am that I am)
"I am confident and I believe that if there was one such other god, he would have been revealed to me."

Calvin,

Expect many scoffers to shout you down in my country. Seems as though you don't want to interact with secular people who don't give a hoot about the Bible and its content.

This might surprise you: I'm interested in reaching such scoffers with the Gospel, but I don't start with quoting the Bible. That statement makes no comment about my view of the Bible but it relates to establishing common ground with antagonists to the Christian faith.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Noone can believe that God "always was", until they come to the true realization that God actually exists.
You have to come to that place in your understanding, first, and once you do, then all the dots connect like magic.

You are starting 100km down the road for most secular people in Australia. Please go back to zero and tell me how you will bring people to the point there they they have a true realisation that God exists. Right now at zero km, they not only do not believe that God exists but ask realistic questions for non-Christians, 'Who made God?'

Please tell me how you would take them from 0km to 100km in their quest for gaining an understanding of who created God.

You want to start here:

It really simple to figure this out, as long as you start at the right place.
The right place is to realize that yes, there is a GOD who IS THE Creator.

The right place to start for secularists is where they are, not where you would like them to be and to go. Use the common ground you have as Paul did on the Areopagus (Acts 17).

He didn't start with, 'Yes, I see that you believe there is a GOD who IS THE Creator'. He started with, 'for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: "To an Unknown God." This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I'm telling you about' (Acts 17:23 NLT).

If you lived in secular Brisbane and was on a podium in the Queen Street Mall in the CBD and you were proclaiming the Gospel, you could start with, 'I see that 22% of Aussies said they have "no religion" in the 2011 census'.

Let me point out to you that you really are serving a god and the 'not religion' category on the census is a way of ignoring the facts that 'no religion' is just as religious a category as other categories of religion. Here's why. What is religion?

That's one example of how we can try to establish common ground with secularists.

I don't start with, 'I can't share the Gospel with you so that you understand it, until you believe that God exists'. You have to start way back further than that in Australia.

Come Down Under to the Queen Street Mall or any university campus where open air preaching is allowed and you'll know what you need to do to communicate with secularists.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

calvin here,
I quoted from your post.
If you think that quote from your post is not a true representation of what you posted then I suggest you do something about your eyes.........rescued any seals lately?
Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god Esv.

Pity, because the Lord is a Christian's strength and light. His word is a lamp for our souls.

Calvin,

Where have I stated in this thread that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face? Please refer me back to a post where I stated that.

Thanks,
Oz

 

[calvin]

His point is that your answer didn't address what he was asking.

ok. I see how rule #9 applies here.

 

[calvin]

It has absolutely nothing to do with "being afraid to offer the Bible up front," but rather that secular people in secular countries don't care about the Bible; any answers one gives from it are irrelevant to them, as Oz stated in the OP.

calvin here.
Well I live on the same continent Oz claims to live on, though not in the 'banana republic' as it is commonly known as....But don't you worry bout that.
It has been my experience that there are two types of atheist.
the closed minded who just say that the burden of proof rests with the theist.
the second group will say something like "tell me more".
It is this second group who are fertile ground.
The first group are like barren soil and of no value. If the Lord Himself can not get through to members of this group, can not till the ground so to speak, then why would we want to be such poor stewards of our time and resources by trying where the Lord has failed?
(that is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.)

 

[calvin]

Calvin,

Where have I stated in this thread that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face? Please refer me back to a post where I stated that.

Thanks,
Oz

Oz please refer me back to a post where I expressly stated as you imply that I said "Ozpen stated that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face?
In post #8 I did ask you a question that you seem to have completely misrepresented here. I asked a civil question and that has been met with a direct false allegation.
Is that what we are to expect from you?

Are you saying that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face?(metaphorically speaking)

I have quoted from post #8 and I wish to respectfully draw you attention to the syntax of the words I employed including the use of a question mark.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz please refer me back to a post where I expressly stated as you imply that I said "Ozpen stated that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face?
In post #8 I did ask you a question that you seem to have completely misrepresented here. I asked a civil question and that has been met with a direct false allegation.
Is that what we are to expect from you?

I have quoted from post #8 and I wish to respectfully draw you attention to the syntax of the words I employed including the use of a question mark.

Calvin,

What did you state in #8?

Hello calvin here,
Are you saying that the Bible is not sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face?(metaphorically speaking)
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Kjv​

You asked a question but then answered your own question by quoting Isa 55:11, indicating that the Bible is sufficient for bringing man and the Lord face to face.

Now you claim,

In post #8 I did ask you a question that you seem to have completely misrepresented here. I asked a civil question and that has been met with a direct false allegation.
Is that what we are to expect from you?​

In my understanding, I did not misrepresent you because you answered your own question in #8. How I answered in #12 was accurate because you had created a straw man fallacy at #8 of what I was driving at in the OP.

You sarcastically ask, 'Is that what we are to expect from you?' What you get from me is an honest attempt to be a Christian apologist who deals with the responses to my posts. I may get it wrong, but I don't think so on this occasion.

Oz

 

[calvin]

OK

 

[Runner]

Runner,

Please present for our consideration the content of, (1) The Cosmological proof, and (2) The Ontological proof, so that we understand how you are seeing them as demonstrating who made God.

Thanks,
Oz

The following are simple formulations that are reproduced verbatim from Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press 2011):

Ontological Argument:

1. God is understood or defined as a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived."
2. A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.
4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of a fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.
5. But God is by definition the greatest possible being.
6. Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool) claims but in reality as well. By reduction ad absurdum.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause of the universe is God.

As stated above, both arguments and the Cosmological argument in particular sound as simplistic as begging the question. Anyone who has studied William Lane Craig knows that neither is simplistic and the Cosmological argument in particular is not. A full-blown formulation can lead to the conclusion that "a personal deity pretty much as conceived on by Christianity is the God who exists." The essential points in regard to your OP, as I made earlier, are that:

1. The Ontological argument "proves" the existence of God as "the greatest possible being." Relevant to your OP, the greatest possible being cannot be made or caused by something else, or this being would not be the greatest possible being.
2. The Cosmological argument "proves" God is the first cause. Relevant to your OP, the first cause cannot be made or caused by something else, or this cause would not be the first cause.
3. The Ontological and Cosmological "proofs" are formal, philosophically valid proofs that have stood for centuries. This does not mean they are beyond challenge or universally accepted. But because they are formal, philosophically valid proofs, they do provide an actual answer (i.e., "No one") to the question "Who made God?" Merely telling an atheist he has made a "category mistake" by even asking his impertinent question because the Christian God is by definition uncaused and uncreated does not provide an answer; it merely begs the question.

In regard to your question about answering the objection that the universe is eternal, I would refer you to Groothuis' book (which is excellent) and others like it. The notion that the universe is eternal is not even a mainstream scientific position. Things like the notion of a perpetually collapsing and rebounding universe are thought-experiments in a desperate attempt to avoid the theistic implications of Big Bang cosmology. I'm guessing five hours with Groothuis' book would be more profitable than 500 hours on any Internet forum; that has certainly been my experience.

 

[Free]

The following are simple formulations that are reproduced verbatim from Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comparative Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press 2011):

I think you meant "...A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith". It's on my shelf. I have referenced it once or twice but have yet to read through it.

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Ap...=1488393933&sr=1-1&keywords=douglas+groothius

 

[Runner]

I think you meant "...A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith". It's on my shelf. I have referenced it once or twice but have yet to read through it.

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Ap...=1488393933&sr=1-1&keywords=douglas+groothius

Right, I corrected my post.

Another obvious choice is Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig, https://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-F...d=1488404106&sr=8-1&keywords=reasonable+faith. I buy almost nothing but Kindle editions of books anymore, since they are vastly more user-friendly. Both Groothuis and Craig are available in Kindle editions.

Most of my non-Christian friends have some version of the "Who made God?" objection. There really isn't a completely convincing answer to that question. I still believe the point I made in my first post is legitimate: A compelling case can be made that (1) we live in a universe designed and brought into existence by a creator having personal attributes, and (2) Christianity is the most coherent and evidence-based explanation for how this universe operates. If an atheist took the time to fully investigate (1) and (2) and became convinced both were true, then the question "Who made God?" would fade far into the background and become unimportant except as an academic exercise to be addressed by things like the Ontological argument. Is it possible that Christianity is true insofar as this universe is concerned but that the being we call God, while having all the divine attributes we attribute to Him insofar as this universe is concerned, is merely a Junior God in some even larger scheme of things (sort of like the Gnostic demiurge) and was in fact Himself caused or created? Certainly, that is possible - but what difference would it make to a Christian believer, someone who believes (1) and (2)? Would we somehow feel "cheated" or "duped" if that turned out to be the case?

"Who made God?" is almost never being asked sincerely. It's asked as a challenge, a way of pointing out that believers have simply posited a non-material cause to explain the material universe - i.e., they've just moved the unknown materialistic explanation for the universe up a level and called it God for no good reason (or so the atheist believes). No atheist is ever going to say, "Wow, you've convinced me that there is an uncaused cause for the universe, that no one made God! I guess I'll start taking Christianity more seriously." Ain't gonna happen, ever. What an atheist might become convinced of is (1) and (2) as set forth in the preceding paragraph. Noted atheist philosopher Antony Flew became more or less convinced of (1) and thus became more or less a theist (or deist) without concerning himself at all about "Who made God?"

 

[OzSpen]

OK

Which of these statements do you support when you state OK? https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...t=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=iYy3WPe_BMzN8ge6y6UQ

 

[OzSpen]

calvin here.
Well I live on the same continent Oz claims to live on, though not in the 'banana republic' as it is commonly known as....But don't you worry bout that.

calvin,

I DO live in the greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia area. 'Oz claims to live on' is not reality. I really do live in Australia and the Australian Electoral Commission and my driver's licence will confirm that.

Using a pejorative term like 'banana republic' for us Queenslanders is something I become used to. However, using that term about a fellow Christian believer on a Christian forum is not uplifting.

Where do you live in Australia?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The following are simple formulations that are reproduced verbatim from Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press 2011):

Ontological Argument:

1. God is understood or defined as a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived."
2. A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.
4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of a fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.
5. But God is by definition the greatest possible being.
6. Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool) claims but in reality as well. By reduction ad absurdum.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause of the universe is God.

As stated above, both arguments and the Cosmological argument in particular sound as simplistic as begging the question. Anyone who has studied William Lane Craig knows that neither is simplistic and the Cosmological argument in particular is not. A full-blown formulation can lead to the conclusion that "a personal deity pretty much as conceived on by Christianity is the God who exists." The essential points in regard to your OP, as I made earlier, are that:

1. The Ontological argument "proves" the existence of God as "the greatest possible being." Relevant to your OP, the greatest possible being cannot be made or caused by something else, or this being would not be the greatest possible being.
2. The Cosmological argument "proves" God is the first cause. Relevant to your OP, the first cause cannot be made or caused by something else, or this cause would not be the first cause.
3. The Ontological and Cosmological "proofs" are formal, philosophically valid proofs that have stood for centuries. This does not mean they are beyond challenge or universally accepted. But because they are formal, philosophically valid proofs, they do provide an actual answer (i.e., "No one") to the question "Who made God?" Merely telling an atheist he has made a "category mistake" by even asking his impertinent question because the Christian God is by definition uncaused and uncreated does not provide an answer; it merely begs the question.

In regard to your question about answering the objection that the universe is eternal, I would refer you to Groothuis' book (which is excellent) and others like it. The notion that the universe is eternal is not even a mainstream scientific position. Things like the notion of a perpetually collapsing and rebounding universe are thought-experiments in a desperate attempt to avoid the theistic implications of Big Bang cosmology. I'm guessing five hours with Groothuis' book would be more profitable than 500 hours on any Internet forum; that has certainly been my experience.

Runner,

Thank you for an excellent overview of these two pieces of evidence for the existence and origin of God: The Cosmological argument and The Ontological argument.

I don't have Groothuis' book, but I do have Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

Oz

 

[Runner]

calvin here.
Well I live on the same continent Oz claims to live on, though not in the 'banana republic' as it is commonly known as....But don't you worry bout that.
It has been my experience that there are two types of atheist.
the closed minded who just say that the burden of proof rests with the theist.
the second group will say something like "tell me more".
It is this second group who are fertile ground.
The first group are like barren soil and of no value. If the Lord Himself can not get through to members of this group, can not till the ground so to speak, then why would we want to be such poor stewards of our time and resources by trying where the Lord has failed?
(that is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.)

There are all varieties of non-Christians. Some people actually do respond to a simplistic presentation of the Gospel with little or no arm-twisting. Often this is because they have been brought low by some emotional, financial or health disaster and thus have been "prepared" in this way to receive the Good News. Others respond because they are already believers in some other religion and thus have been "prepared" in this way to find the Gospel more convincing or attractive. Others respond out of pure emotionalism. I used to be with Campus Crusade and used the Four Spiritual Laws tract (you can't get much simpler than that) in witnessing. Most people did not respond favorably, but an occasional one did. Of those who didn't, few were hostile; they were simply uninterested. Of those who did, only a percentage remained committed Christians years later. But for some, a simplistic presentation of the Gospel was indeed enough to transform their lives.

Even among those who claim to be atheists, there are many varieties. For many, "atheism" represents more of a political and social agenda than a genuine disbelief in the existence of God. For many others, claiming to be an atheist is mostly a way to fit in with their peers, to ensure social or intellectual acceptability. In both of these categories, almost none of the supposed "atheists" has given any thought whatsoever to the evidence for the existence of God or the truths of Christianity. If presented with the Gospel, they have been programmed to respond with derision and ridicule, to laugh it off as too silly to require a response. I don't think we can reasonably say they are of "barren soil" or of "no value," since future circumstances may cause them to become more open. But at this stage of their lives, they are almost impossible nuts to crack - either with a simplistic presentation of the Gospel or with all sorts of sophisticated philosophical and theological arguments. Probably the best "witnessing" to them is simply to live a Christian life around them.

I believe it is the serious atheists who are the "fertile ground" for the sort of presentation Oz seems to be talking about. These folks actually have given some thought to the philosophical and theological issues. They are willing to engage them, not merely respond with derision and ridicule. Years ago, I used to participate on the Forum for Active and Critical Thinking Skills (FACTS), which was then 99% dominated by serious, highly intellectual atheists. Some of these folks knew more about the Bible, theology and Christian history than 99.9% of all Christians, including pastors. The depth of their knowledge was not merely surprising, it was astounding. In light of the fact that naturalism and materialism are the ruling paradigms in science and philosophy, I don't believe it is unreasonable for atheists to take the position that the burden of proof rests with the theist. "I'll listen, but you have the burden of proof" is a far different response from "Get lost, bozo, you're a fool who believes in magical fantasies." In Biblical terminology, serious atheists who are willing to engage the issues are at least not "lukewarm."

How do we know who the Lord can or can't "get through" to? If someone doesn't respond favorably to the Four Spiritual Laws, does this mean the Lord can't get through to her and she thus is "barren soil"? There is certainly a place for the type of witnessing you are talking about, but it is only going to be successful with a certain type of person who represents a fairly small segment of the population. (People who claim to be atheists or actually embrace atheism are certainly a much larger percentage than when I was with Campus Crusade, and I frankly wouldn't look forward to knocking on dorm room doors with the Four Spiritual Laws in today's climate.) There is likewise a place, particularly among the younger generations, for witnessing that deals with the more sophisticated evidentiary, philosophical and theological issues.

Even with Campus Crusade, when I was a Christian newbie, I was always kind of dismayed at the focus on statistics: "I presented the Four Spiritual Laws 28 times today, and eight people prayed to receive Christ!" Whoopee, well done, praise the Lord!!! "I spent all afternoon discussing God with one guy, and when I left he said he'd think about it and maybe meet with me again if he felt like it." What??? You loser, you time-waster, get with the program! In the now 45 years since my Campus Crusade days, my Christian six-shooter has no more than a handful of notches on it - but I'm willing to bet God is as pleased with those few notches as with any Billy Graham crusade. If all we had to do was shout the Gospel and cherry-pick those who were pre-programmed by circumstances or emotions to receive it, fulfilling the Great Commission would be very easy indeed.

FYI, I have yet to meet this second group of atheists who hears a presentation of the Gospel and says "Tell me more!"

 

[Rebel Crusader]

Time (past, present, and future) and space applies to our universe, (our dimension) that God created. We're linear and finite. I don't believe that this is the case for God and Heaven which is timeless and infinite. God exists outside of our time and space, and encompasses it all. Heaven could be the very realm or a realm where the same principles apply that our universe is constantly expanding into.

Going to what came first the chicken or the egg (in which the chicken represents creation, and the egg represents evolution/pseudo-biology) this is a very old back and forth argument. The third variable is always out of focus and never mentioned. The third variable is the ground on which the chicken and the egg stand and rest upon. Quantum physics brings this variable that has always been there into focus. The common denominator between these animate and inanimate objects is matter. Matter is made up of light, which brings us to the holographic universe. I'd say the chickens came first and they were programed to lay eggs after their own kind.

 

[Runner]

Time (past, present, and future) and space applies to our universe, (our dimension) that God created. We're linear and finite. I don't believe that this is the case for God and Heaven which is timeless and infinite. God exists outside of our time and space, and encompasses it all. Heaven could be the very realm or a realm where the same principles apply that our universe is constantly expanding into.

Going to what came first the chicken or the egg (in which the chicken represents creation, and the egg represents evolution/pseudo-biology) this is a very old back and forth argument. The third variable is always out of focus and never mentioned. The third variable is the ground on which the chicken and the egg stand and rest upon. Quantum physics brings this variable that has always been there into focus. The common denominator between these animate and inanimate objects is matter. Matter is made up of light, which brings us to the holographic universe. I'd say the chickens came first and they were programed to lay eggs after their own kind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The common denominator between these animate and inanimate objects is matter." A purely materialistic, naturalistic paradigm has a very difficult (so far, impossible) time of explaining the behavior of quantum particles. A purely materialistic paradigm likewise has a very difficult time explaining consciousness. This is why Big Bang cosmology, quantum physics and consciousness studies are particularly exciting to those who reject the materialistic paradigm (which, of course, includes Christians).

As you may know, one of the most promising current avenues of thinking, because it potentially unifies the bizarre realm of quantum physics and the larger realm of everyday physics, is the notion that our universe is a simulation, essentially a cosmic computer program. By this hypothesis, we are in effect virtual creatures occupying a virtual reality. This has not achieved the status of mainstream physics (whatever that is these days) but it is not laughed at either. I don't see any conflict between Christian theology and the simulation hypothesis.

Of course, even if we do occupy a simulation, this still leaves the question "Who, if anyone, created the Programmer?" The Programmer seemingly could exist outside of our time and space but within a caused or created time and space of its own. I don't see any convincing way to eliminate this possibility except through something like the Cosmological Argument discussed above. As Christians, of course, we accept on faith that God is the uncaused, uncreated Creator of all that is, even if the universe we know may not be "all that is." He is not a Junior Programmer.

As these sorts of documentaries go, this one is pretty well done:

 

[Rebel Crusader]

Most people can't imagine anywhere that time and space would have no meaning outside of our bubble where it does. Where it doesn't, there is no beginning, and no end. Past, present, future, it's all relative. God exists in the past, present, future in all points of time and space simultaneously. The past is the present, the present is the present, and the future is the present for God. God doesn't need a memory in order to remember. He needs a memory in order to forget what He sees before Him. “I will remember their ( the believer) sins and their lawless deeds no more.” This makes the question of who made the programmer irrelevant and absurd to ask because it's a reference to time (a starting point) where time does not apply. As far as the common denominator I think you got what I meant.

 

[Runner]

Most people can't imagine anywhere that time and space would have no meaning outside of our bubble where it does.

I would say "no one" can imagine that. I certainly can't.

Where it doesn't, there is no beginning, and no end. Past, present, future, it's all relative. God exists in the past, present, future in all points of time and space simultaneously. The past is the present, the present is the present, and the future is the present for God.

"Eternity," as I'm sure you know, is not a "really long time." It isn't a measure of time at all. Christians believe God is eternal, timeless. To ask, "What was God doing in the trillions of years before He created our universe?" is to make a category mistake. The exact nature of time, and God's relationship to it, are deep subjects. I tend to view it the way you have described, but not all theologians see it this way.

God doesn't need a memory in order to remember. He needs a memory in order to forget. This makes the question of who programed or made the programmer irrelevant and absurd to ask because it's a reference to time where time does not apply.

Yes, if God as we Christians understand Him is indeed the programmer. But this answer begs the question. The fact that the God of Christianity is the programmer is not self-evidently true, in the same way that "all triangles have three sides" is self-evidently true. It is "true" because this is the way we Christians define God (or the Bible defines Him). Christianity makes the question "Who made God?" irrelevant, which is why Geisler says atheists who ask this question have made a category mistake. It would, however, be entirely possible in theory to have a programmer of our universe who was not eternal, timeless, uncreated or uncaused.

We believe Christianity is true. We believe this for a variety of compelling reasons. The real question, even for an atheist, should be "Is Christianity true?" If the answer to this question is yes, then "Who made God?" becomes as irrelevant as "Why does a triangle have three sides?"

The atheist is trying to avoid the question "Is Christianity true?" by suggesting the threshold question must be "Who made God?" This has things exactly backwards.

It would be fair for the atheist to make the threshold question "Why should I believe there is any God?" before moving on to "Is Christianity true?" But asking "Who made God?" is just a way to avoid the real issues.

I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud.

 

[MarkT]

In my sharing the Gospel in my secular Australian culture, I sometimes meet this objection when I begin discussing God: ‘You claim that there is eternal life for all who believe. Who on earth made God? There's no point in going any further unless we can get a satisfactory answer to this question'.

I'm coming at this from a view that these people have no respect for the Bible. To quote the Bible will get an automatic rebuff.

Leading Christian apologist Norman Geisler, in the book Who Made God? And Answers to over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (Zacharias & Geisler 2003), addressed the title of the book, Who Made God? (Zacharias & Geisler 2003) this way:

Who Made God?

“No one did,” he wrote. “He was not made. He has always existed” (2003:23).

But, wait! Is this credible? If the universe has a beginning (and modern science has concluded that it indeed DID have a beginning), then wouldn’t God need a beginning as well?

According to Geisler, “Only things that had a beginning – like the world – need a maker. God had no beginning, so God did not need to be made” (2003:23)

Sounds a little like a cop-out, doesn’t it? Not so, says Geisler. Here is more of his answer:

“Traditionally, most atheists who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just “there” forever. They appeal to the first law of thermodynamics for support: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,” they insist. Several things must be observed in response.

“First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion. Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic “can” and “cannot” implicit in this statement. It should read, “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” That is, no one had observed any actual new energy either coming into existence or going out of existence. Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning” (2003:24, emphasis added).​

In other words, the first law of thermodynamics does not require a cause or creator for God.

Moreover, if God IS, then He has supernatural power. And the very definition of ‘supernatural’ means that He stands OUTSIDE of nature. If God is God, then God needs no Creator.

As Geisler explained: “It is absurd to ask ‘Who made God?’ It is a category mistake to ask, ‘Who made the Unmade?’ or ‘Who created the Uncreated?'” (2003: 24).

Is this a reasonable approach to answering the question or do you have another and better approach to answering this question from secularists?

Oz

Works consulted
Zacharias, R & Geisler, N (gen eds.) 2003. Who made God? and answers to over 100 other tough questions of faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

The LORD said, "before me no god was formed." Isa. 43:10 So there was no one, no god, to create Him; before Him there was no god and besides Him there is no god.
Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.