# Who created God?

The question of man's creation is addressed quite thoroughly in the Bible (whether you believe it is metaphorical or not). Does the Bible (or other relevant references) in any way answer who created God, or how he was created?

What are the common or prevalent Christian* teachings on this topic?

Note, to the answers that say he was not created — some explanation, reasoning, and, ideally, references are what are being asked for here. Without any of that, it is an answer that is simply begging the question and not an answer that helps a questioning person.

* Answers from any/all major denominations would be helpful.

-
In my apologetics class we were taught to defend the position that God never began to exist, therefore does not require a creator. Only things that begin to exist need a creator. –  Tyler Gillies Sep 3 '11 at 2:24
...just like any explanation on where the universe came from is begging the question? –  dancek Sep 3 '11 at 8:37
Nothing. God does not belong to His Creation, but He is the Creator of it. He even created the time, that's why He already existed at the very beginning of times. –  Luc125 Sep 3 '11 at 8:51
@dancek - questions about the origins of the universe may in fact be answerable. The answer to where the universe came from is "we don't know (yet)". This renders it answerable. –  Fake Name Sep 4 '11 at 6:43
@Fake Name: and if we find the cause of the universe, questions about the origins of that cause may in fact be answerable? –  dancek Sep 4 '11 at 21:43

## 17 Answers

This question is not answerable from a Christian perspective; it presupposes God was created, but the Bible clearly teaches that God is eternal (in the truest sense of the word). An eternal being has no creator, no beginning, no end, and no cause. Rather he is the creator of all that is, the beginning and the end of all that is, and the cause of all that is.

Note, don't confuse eternal (having no beginning or end) with everlasting (just having no end). An eternal being is literally timeless, whereas an everlasting being exists in time and lasts from it's inception forever. An eternal being is everlasting, but an everlasting being is not necessarily eternal. Only God is eternal, though Christians will be raised to everlasting life in Christ.

Note also that when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means the life that comes from Christ, which is itself eternal as Christ is; it is not speaking of those of us who receive this life somehow becoming eternal, per se.

For reference, Biblical teaching of God's eternal nature:

1. Genesis 21:33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.

2. Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, 'Destroy them!'

3. Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.

4. Psalm 119:89 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

5. Psalm 119:160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

6. Isaiah 26:4 Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock eternal.

-
Eternal, in the sense indicated in the scriptures, is undoubtedly intended to be express something outside of time which is mutually exclusivity with having been created. However, I'd be hesitant to suggest that eternal in the "normal" sense of the word, having no beginning or end in time, is mutually exclusive with having been created outside of time, which is a conceivable possibility for God's creations. Take, for instance, God's promise of eternal life or eternal happiness. –  svidgen Mar 22 '13 at 18:52
To be clear, I don't disagree with your point. But, I'd be cautious to suggest that the two terms are mutually exclusive "by definition." –  svidgen Mar 22 '13 at 18:55
@svidgen: I would argue that the eternal life spoken of in scripture is the life which is in Christ and is truly without beginning or end: "I am the way, the truth and the life". Scripture doesn't teach that we will become eternal beings, but immortal ones by virtue of inheriting the eternal life which is in Christ. We are adopted into an eternal kingdom. If am adopted it means I am henceforth of the family xxx, not that I was of the family xxx in time past. Thus, we have an eternal reward without becoming an eternal being - only God is eternal. –  Lawrence Dol Mar 26 '13 at 18:49

Most mainline (most protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) Christians believe that God has always existed, has no source, and no end, and that all things were created by Him.

Q: What is God?

A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

This is a view that is certainly supported by the Bible

Before the mountains were brought forth,

or ever you had formed the earth and the world,

from everlasting to everlasting you are God. Psalm 90:2

The first chapter of the Gospel of John also lends credence to this belief, indicating that all things were created through God/Jesus. If everything that was made was made through Him, He Himself could not be made.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Other sects may have other beliefs with regard to the nature of God and His origins.

-
+1 for correctly identifying faith as the justification and not hiding behind questionable "logic". –  Sklivvz Sep 10 '11 at 11:28
@Sklivvz I struggle with trying to apply human reasoning to things out of human scope. "Eternal" seems to be hard to reason about to me. –  C. Ross Sep 10 '11 at 13:38

God is simply "I AM". He never started nor will end. He has always been and always will be.

-
Your answer makes no sense in English: did you mean God simply "IS"? Can you make this more than a comment by fleshing up this post? –  Sklivvz Sep 10 '11 at 11:25
@Sklivvz: No, he does not mean to say God simply "is". God is the one who introduced himself by saying that he is "I AM". See Exodus 3:12 for one reference but but it is used many times and many of the names we use for God are built in this statement of his. See also I Am that I Am. Since, when challenged for who he was, God himself gave this answer in reply, I think this qualifies as an answer not a comment just the way it is. –  Caleb Sep 10 '11 at 18:59

St. Thomas Aquinas showed the existance of God using 5 ways. The second way deals with your question:

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
• Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
• The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
• Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

So that first efficient cause was not created.

(source)

-
While it is true that such was written, this rather simplistic argument has also seen a lot of critique - both of old (Hume, Kant) and more recently (IIRC "The God Delusion" devotes a good-sized section to the Aquinas view). You can of course choose your own interpretations and beliefs. –  Marc Gravell Sep 3 '11 at 12:28
@Marc I think -if I remember well- that Kant and Hume criticized Aquinas, but had no access to Aristotle or something... that is, the critique was valid but they were criticizing something that Aquinas didn't state or something like that. Sorry for being so vague. I'll check "The God Delusion", have always wanted to read a critique on Aquinas. Cheers. –  someGuy Sep 3 '11 at 17:19
one of the most obvious failing is of course: even if you accept (I don't) the first lines, the last merely defines the gap as "God". That is just giving it a name; that doesn't make it the Christian God. It could equally apply to any faith or physics proposal. –  Marc Gravell Sep 3 '11 at 17:37
it essentially claims "the unknown" as God; it puts me in mind of the lyrical poem "Storm" (well worth a listen) - paraphrased small part: in the entire history of mankind every mystery ever solved has turned out to be... not magic –  Marc Gravell Sep 3 '11 at 17:38
And of course even if we ignore the contradiction of lines 2 & 7, or the dubious "series" use (which would invalidate our entire number system) and suppose the existence of a causeless... something, we have not shown that to be singular something –  Marc Gravell Sep 3 '11 at 18:02

This question has been the subject of much philosophical and metaphysical enquiry. It belongs to the philosophical category of cosmology. Briefly, every thing, every action (or reaction), every event in the universe has a cause. There is an unbroken chain of causes going back in time. How far back? Most philosophers came to the conclusion that eventually there would be a First Cause, before which there were no prior causes, and this First Cause occurred (by definition) at the creation (beginning) of the universe. The Cosmological Argument is one of the arguments for the existence of God, and it identifies God as the First Cause.

So by this reasoning, by definition, God could not be created. If he was created, then God would not be the First Cause.

-
Then what caused the first cause? A cause by definition has a predecessor. –  Fake Name Sep 3 '11 at 6:01
"every thing, every action (or reaction), every event in the universe has a cause" The premise invalidates the conclusion. To exempt God from the very premise you used to establish him is special pleading. –  Mud Sep 3 '11 at 6:11
@Fake, it is an effect, by definition, that has a predecessor. By definition (consult the referenced links), a First Cause has no predecessor. –  Firstrock Sep 3 '11 at 16:00
I must clarify here. I said, "every event in the universe" has a cause. By admitting the existence of a First Cause, that First Cause is necessarily outside the scope of the universe which the First Cause created. Thus there is no special pleading. –  Firstrock Sep 8 '11 at 23:59
@fir: "every event in the universe has a cause" does not imply "the universe has a cause". It's like saying: "everything in a fish pond swims, therefore a fish pond swims" –  Sklivvz Sep 10 '11 at 11:27

God does not change.

“I the LORD do not change. (Malachi 3:6a)

God transcends time:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)

The first verse indicates that, since God is not an effect, no cause is necessary to explain His existence.

The second verse strengthens the argument by demonstrating that God exists beyond the constraints of time.

-
He changes constantly in the Bible, starting with his change of eternal dormancy to his Universe building and monitoring phase. –  Mud Sep 3 '11 at 6:08
@Mud: "Being active" is different than "being changed". Our perception of God, through the Bible, changes. But God's existence does not change. –  Andrew Sep 3 '11 at 6:34
All action requires change. You change your position, your thoughts, something. Please give an example of an action that doesn't require change. –  Mud Sep 3 '11 at 18:35
@Sklivvz: Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change." –  Flimzy Sep 4 '11 at 21:25
"since it depends on the existence of time, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe" How do you know what exited prior to the creation of the Universe? Hint: wild guesses and/or bronze age texts don't count. –  Mud Sep 5 '11 at 0:44

We get the idea that God is not created throughout the Bible, some examples:

Revelations 22:13

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

In Isaiah God tells us that there is no other god besides Him. So no one to create Him.

Isaiah 45:5

I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. ...

In Genesis 2:4 it states:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

The word LORD is Jehovah, which the definition is "the self-Existent or Eternal".

And in Genesis 1:1 we see: In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth. So that means he by nature had to exist before the beging of time. We also see in 2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day’ also making it clear that God is completely outside of time.

We also see in 1 Kings 8:27

The Heaven of Heavens cannot contain the Glory of God.

So it makes it pretty clear before there was such an idea of space-time, the Bible said using other words, God is outside of the fabric of space-time. and speaking of fabric it says He "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: - Isaiah 40:22

So in closing, Even though it's hard to comprehend for some. God is outside of time, so He dosen't need to have a beginning.

-
+1 for Revelation 22:13. That's the first thing that came to my mind. All the other verses are great, but I feel this one is very clear. Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." –  styfle Sep 10 '11 at 22:41

Everything that we experience here on earth comes from something and goes somewhere. It's hard for us to even begin to consider something with life that did not have a beginning.

God is not a material being, he's a spiritual being. We understand matter, the growth and the decay and the cycles which are in place. Just as it's impossible for us to comprehend a fourth and fifth dimension, it is also impossible for us to comprehend life without a beginning.

If God where to tell us, through the Bible, how he exists, it would be impossible for us to understand it.

With that said, God has always been. God will always be. He is the life and the life giver.

He has not been created.

-
I agree that God is eternal and an eternal being has no beginning and no end. Please explain why an eternal being with no beginning and no end cannot be created (be brought into existence)? Are there scriptures that more expicitly claim that God was not created? –  Pacerier Jul 9 '12 at 15:14

This objection is what the populariser Richard Dawkins brings up in his book the God delusion. Their he tells us that Aquinas is wrong because if everything has a cause it just raises like he puts it "The unanswerable question of who designed the designer or who created the creator."

In the end he does what philosophers like to call a strawman of the argument. It is when you misrepresent a position and then critique the results.

What Aquinas actually says is

1. Objects do not come into existence without a cuase (Which forms the basis of science ie cause and effect)
2. The universe came into existence (Affirmed by physicist like Stephen Hawkins)
3. Therefore the universe has to have a cause

Whatever the cause it had to exist outside of time and space to create the universe ie timeless and materialness It had to be all powerful It had to be all knowing

And before you know it you got yourself something resembling a God

The argument is perfectly logical and the points all clearly follow. So for the atheist to escape the conclusion he has to either prove a eternal universe or show things can come into existence without a cause

Notice though that saying the universe has a cause ans say everything has a cause is not the same. He in fact criticises a argument that no one makes. Especially not those who talk about the cosmological argument for God's existance.

This is the response in a nutshell.

-
Even if we ignore the fact that there are many thoughts to your second point (and the math here is scary hard; I don't think anyone on this site can have a qualified opinion) - this changes nothing; it would a: not prove that the origin is "God" (in the Biblical sense), and would b: pose the recursive question: what caused that cause? –  Marc Gravell Sep 10 '11 at 16:29
You do not have to believe in the cosmological argument for God's existance. That was not my burden of proof. I just showed the origin of the objection and why it is not logically sound because he crtitiques a argument nobody even makes. –  Neil Meyer Sep 13 '11 at 13:14

John 1:1-18 (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

[a] Or understood
[b] Some manuscripts but the only Son, who

This scripture deals with the existence of God from eternity past. Technically it is recursive.. God and the Son of God are one. That is why in Genesis it says, "And God said Let us make man in our image." "Us" and "our" is plural but then God is a spirit and one God he is... obviously since God and the existence of God from eternity past Transcends everything we would classify as Aristotelian or Platonian logic.it is hard to grasp.. This is okay though since God created Plato and Aristotle and their logic (which we have been indoctrinated to use) is simply a apprehension of the truth and not a full comprehension of truth. I like many and there are many scriptures that deal with God's everlasting existence. I like this one above the most because it explains that God and the Word of God(Jesus Christ) has always existed...

-

The question assumes the existence of time, i.e. that there was a time before God. However, the first four words in the Bible are:

In the beginning God

Genesis 1:1

Since God weas there at the start of time, it implies to me that He must have created time. This is another way of saying that He has always been in existence. Ever since time existed, God has been there.

This is also why God can be considered the First Cause: there was nothing before Him, because there was no time before Him.

-
It is discussed among scientists, that time itself did not exist before the big bang. Time is the movement of matter trough a dimension, gravity is the bending of space and time (principle of special relativity). Thus in a state of singularity (big bang) the gravity is so high, that time doesn't exist yet. –  Sven Sep 3 '11 at 8:01
Pseudologic. Creation cannot happen without time, since creation implies a before and an after. –  Sklivvz Sep 10 '11 at 11:30
@Sklivvz Please explain why creation cannot happen without time? Also, why couldn't time be simultaneous such that there there can be a creation, yet no before or after of that event? –  Pacerier Jul 9 '12 at 15:29
@Pac "creation" means going from a state where a thing does not exist, to a state where something exists. This has to happen in this order, otherwise we would be talking about a destruction. This "order" makes sense only if time exists. For example, in your "instantaneous" time, creation would not be possible and it would look exactly like destruction. –  Sklivvz Jul 9 '12 at 18:14
@Sklivvz I agree that this "creation" would look exactly like destruction. But why is this "creation" not possible? –  Pacerier Jul 9 '12 at 19:32

Bible tells us that God is eternal and good numbers of verses are in answer posted by “Software Monkey”. Another imposing verse in Bible is from Isaiah 41:4 which says “.... I, the LORD, am present at the very beginning, and at the very end – I am the one.”

Although scientists now believe the universe had a beginning from nothing, they can’t tell us who was there to start it all. John reveals that before creation, “the Word already existed” and was “with God.”:

John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

Leaving aside these assertions from Bible that God being eternal, for a moment let us assume that God did not exist at the beginning. Imagine a time when there was nothing in existence neither God existed nor the universe or even the voids (empty space). Not even energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts or any physical laws. There was absolute nothing or absolute non existence. In this state of nothingness, the question that arises: how something had its origin from this state of “absolute nothing”?

“Absolute nothing”, is complete “non-existence”. No energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete "lack-of-all". The mind of the reader trying to visualize this would be gone as well. But, in this "absolute nothing”, there would be also no mechanism present, to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Nonetheless, because we can see and perceive that “something” is here now, the only possibility then is that “absolute nothing” was somehow instrumental in creating this “something”.

The fact is: This “absolute non existence” is not same as our mind’s conception of non-existence. In this absolute non existence neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the ENTIRETY of what is there and is thus an “existent state” (which is inconceivable with our existent mind). Thus this “existent state” was instrumental in creating this “something” from itself. To our finite mind it is “absolute nothing” but that “State” is God eternal.

Therefore God is beyond our comprehension and He has no creator. He is a unique Force, capable of producing something from what we define as “absolute nothing”. It is an Eternal Entity that has been the initial cause of everything that we perceive-universe and everything that universe comprises of.

-

The Basic Christian teaching on this is as Genesis puts it (and as John echoes in his Gospel) 'in the Beginning, God...' All things start with God and proceed from there. Some other answers have talked about the eternal, which is just a way to say if God has a sort of beginning, it is not a temporal beginning and the word 'created' would not be the proper term as Christians use the term.

If God has some kind of Genesis of his own, it is beyond the scope of our knowledge. The only thing I have heard on the subject that comes close to answering this question comes from the Serbian Saint Nikolai :

Prayers By the Lake, XI

[...]

Eternity exists in eternity just as duration exists in time. In one eternity, O Lord, You were in ineffable sameness and Your vesperal blessedness. At that time Your hypostases were the truth within You, for it was impossible for them not to be in You. But they did not recognize one another, for they were unconscious of their diversity. In a second eternity You were in Your matinal blessedness, and the three hypostases recognized themselves as such.

The Father was not before the Son, nor was the Son before the Father, nor was the All-Holy Spirit before or after the Father and the Son. As a man while waking suddenly opens both eyes at the same time, so did the three hypostases within You suddenly open at the same time. There is no Father without the Son and no Son without the Holy Spirit.

[...]

In response to the question, the Christian answer could very well be, God himself.

-
Some apparently didn't like this answer, yet it is orthodox. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote of the Father, 'even his own person is at his pleasure.' –  RiverC Sep 6 '11 at 13:53

Surely, if we define "God" as the supreme being... if that supreme being was created, then that which created it is the supreme being.

We cannot really fathom God, he does not subscribe to our laws. It's like an ant asking who created humans?

-
Actually, for an imaginary future/evolved ant intelligent enough to ask the question, the question is perfectly reasonable. Humans and ants do follow the same physical universe laws. IMO the last sentence undermines the answer. –  Marc Gravell Sep 10 '11 at 16:22
I agree with @Marc here, the analogy actually breaks the point rather than re-enforcing it since the two items are on the same playing field instead of different ones. The first part was good. –  Caleb Sep 10 '11 at 19:03
@Caleb sooner or later we were bound to run out of ways to disagree :p –  Marc Gravell Sep 10 '11 at 22:55
the point of an analogy is to illustrate, not to comprehensively explain. –  Michael Wiles Sep 12 '11 at 14:27
"..if that supreme being was created, then that which created it is the supreme being.." Please explain this assumption. –  Pacerier Jul 9 '12 at 15:32

This answer is based on LDS theology. Note that the 'Logical Reasoning' portion is my own interpretation of official doctrine, and should not be accepted as official by any means.

### Logical Reasoning:

If man can become as God now is, logic dictates that God was once like man.

If God was once like man, then he was created and had a God of his own. This gives us an endless chain of Gods and creations. I will use the term "Time" to mean that frame of reference where God was God (not man). The beginning of Time could refer to when God was changed from a disembodied spirit (died as a mortal man, spirit went to God) to a resurrected being (as the Atonement provides). The end of Time doesn't exist, because God will remain God forever (will always be our Father).

This is the explanation of "the course of God is one eternal round". God creates a world, populates it, and then judges it. After that, He starts over with a new world.

God creates man -> man becomes as God -> God creates man

Thus we have an eternal chain backwards of God's creating man, and an eternal chain of man becoming gods. This is like the revolution of the earth around the Sun. We start at Winter (nothing), go to Spring (creation), which leads to Summer (history of the earth), which leads to Fall (harvest, millennial reign of Christ), which returns to Winter (man becomes as God, but hasn't started creating worlds).

Summary

LDS theology claims that man can become like God. What that means isn't entirely described by current Revelation. The logical reasoning I provided may not be official Church doctrine, but it goes to show one possible explanation of where God came from.

-

As Christian, I ever thought the same way. But if you are quite mature in faith of Christianity. You should notice that

we as human beings come from God (created by God) and will be back to God

. That kind of question is unresolved and beyond our mind. We are just to tiny before God. But as you are concerned, there is supreme power that control this universe. This universe is not coincidently happened just as that. That if you have faith and faith is somehow different from logical manners.

-
Would you please cite your reference? –  C. Ross Sep 3 '11 at 13:27

I think we can only speculate here but one thing is for sure: God, being perfect, is obviously the most complex being one can imagine.

As far as the theological discussion goes there are only two mechanisms with which you can create complexity out of simplicity:

• evolution
• creation

God cannot have been created: One would need a Super-God, above that another Super-Super-God and so on which would create an infinity regress and we wouldn't know to whom to pray - and additionally it is written in the Holy Bible that there is only One God!

So it must have been an evolutionary process where at the end our Loving Father evolved. This is the only possible conclusion. How that happened exactly: Nobody knows an answer to this question - but we should all be grateful that it happend in the end!

-
Pretty sure that this answer makes little sense in either scientific (many logic jumps) or Biblical terms (the Bible repeatedly defines God as unchanging, which denies evolutionary development of a God, plus evolution of a God makes no sense if you look at what evolution means). –  Marc Gravell Sep 4 '11 at 15:48
on the contrary - the notion of evolution only makes sense when you have some external factor to define "more successful". If nothing else exists, you just have status quo. And btw, the assumption of complex<=>perfect is itself a massve assumption. –  Marc Gravell Sep 4 '11 at 16:25
@MarcGravell is correct here, the Biblical testimony is quite clear on the point that God does not change. He is from everlasting to everlasting, the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, before all things. Neither his character nor his will change with time. He did not evolve. A variable in a script that stops getting changes doesn't automatically become a constant. It's a variable. God is a constant and always has been that way. –  Caleb Sep 4 '11 at 17:15
@vonjd regular evolution very much has something that defines "better" - i.e. did you survive long enough and manage to mate to pass on your genes (or otherwise reproduce; some fairly advanced species can reproduce asexually). Nothing more, nothing less. Re perfect: I would make no assumption about either simple or complex; that debate is a: moot, and b: supposition –  Marc Gravell Sep 4 '11 at 17:25
The problem with this (as I see it) is God is if anything simple and not complex. –  RiverC Sep 6 '11 at 13:54

## protected by Marc Gravell♦Sep 3 '11 at 12:06

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?