Dawkins et al. gibber incessantly that the cosmological argument fails because, once you have concluded that someone must have created the universe and that someone is God, you must answer the question, “who created God?”. The immediate problem with this line of reasoning is the confusion between the categories of what is created and what isn’t. Science tells us the universe is not eternal but was created. By definition, God is eternal and not created: the universe needs a creator, God doesn’t.

John Lennox explains another logical problem with the “who created the creator” view here:

SCIENCE AND religion are not incompatible, but should be seen as complementary fields, a gathering in Dublin heard this weekend. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and the author of a number of works on science and religion, told the annual meeting of the Oxford and Cambridge Society of Ireland that the notion that science and religion are inimical is a “myth”.

“Faith is not only a religious concept, it is also a scientific concept . . . Every scientist believes that nature is rationally intelligent. [sic – it should be intelligible]” Describing what he called the “logical incoherence” of atheism, propounded by figures such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, he said the question of “who created the creator” could also be applied to atheists. “I have said to Richard Dawkins . . . if you believe the universe created you and is your creator, who created your creator?

“Most of us have got an ultimate fact,” he said, “for atheists it is the universe, for me the ultimate fact is God. It’s not a question of whether there’s the ultimate fact, the real question is which fact is ultimate.”