That being said, discovering things is fun, so as human beings we should not stop doing science/religion/philosophy/etc ever.
It is if you assume God is bound to the chain of causation, but obviously any creator is likely unbound by the system of laws in which his creation exists, the same as when we create a video game we stand apart from it. I always liked the Dr. Quantum Flatland as an example of god-like capabilities wrt dimensionality:
(I can’t watch the video right now.)
Why not say that God was created by God_1, who just already existed?
Time, and causuality, is a construct inside of our universe. Asking who created the creator is like asking which way is down when you are in outer space..
"caused" can mean a different thing. Imagine causualty in a 3d FPS video game, and the creation of the game itself. Though they are similar in semantics, one is different from the other.
The reason will have no consequence to the beings in the game, and thus they will only be interested in the causuality mechanism within the game..
It's also important to note that the big bang theory completely leaves open the question of what there was in the tiny tiny universe before inflation. Basically, the current BBT describes how the universe evolved starting from some time t=t0 + 10^-36 seconds. But that leaves a gap after t0 but before this time.
Finally, the question of existence from nothing is traditionally extended to the supposed singularity that existed at t0 as well, though that is on shaker ground.
That is, in our usual life, everything that exists comes from something else that exists. But we can't easily apply this rule to the very beginning of the universe (be it the big bang or whatever other model).
So, the question is - how do we handle this? Thomas Aquinas said that this is itself proof of God's existence: the universe did not exist at some point, then God created the first thing. Of course, the next logical question is - ok, then how does the rule apply to God? And the religious say - well, the rule doesn't apply to God, only to creation.
But, if we accept that the rule isn't universal, then we can also choose not to apply it to the beginning of the universe. Instead, we can tweak the rule to say that everything except the singularity at the beginning of the Universe is created by another existing thing; the singularity itself was always there and requires no explanation. This is perfectly consistent with the Big Bang theory, and is in fact how most scientists conceptualize it (or, they say that questions about the origin of that singularity make no sense, since time itself began once the singularity started inflating, but this is philosophically similar).
Of course, we can posit anything we want about that singularity and its past (if any), and we will never contradict another theory, since there is no remnant in the existing universe of what came before inflation, so whatever theory we want will be consistent with the current universe.
Did a different universe collapse into that singularity, perhaps one with slightly different constants of nature? Sure, why not. Was it a regular black hole in another, larger, universe that still exists, but which is too far away from us to be detectable in any way now that space-time has expanded so much? Possibly, why not. Did gods and demons fight until they a powerful sorceror cast a spell to imprison them into single point, where they and there magic were ground to dust and exploded in the inflation? Perfectly coherent with all known physical theories.
This blows away all religious arguments trying to plug a creator in there: since the universe was never created, it doesn't need a creator.
In other words, the properties of that which is uncreated would need to be defined so they can be distinguished from something that is created. These properties have to be understood and accepted as an exclusive set that cannot be "distributed" or "shared" among other beings; in order to dispel the notion that there can be multiple uncreated beings or beings that are created that share attributes with The Creator.
The reason for easiness in regard to the complete otherness of His Essence and His unrestrictedness is this: most certainly, the Maker of the universe is not of the same kind as the universe. His Essence resembles no other essence at all. Since this is so, the obstacles and restraints within the sphere of the universe cannot hinder Him, they cannot restrict His actions. He has complete disposal over the whole universe and is able to transform all of it at the same time. If the disposal and actions that are apparent in the universe were to be attributed to it, it would cause so many difficulties and so much confusion that neither would any order remain nor would anything continue to exist; indeed, nothing would be able to come into existence.
For example, if the masterly art in vaulted domes is attributed to the stones of the domes, and if the command of a battalion, which properly belongs to its officer, is left to the soldiers, either neither of them would ever come into existence, or with great difficulty and confusion they would achieve a state completely lacking in order. Whereas, if in order for the situation of the stones in the dome to be achieved, it is accorded to a master who is not a stone himself, and if the command of the soldiers in the regiment is referred to an officer who possesses the essential quality of officership, both the art is easy and command and organization are easy. This is because, while the stones and the soldiers are obstacles to each other, the master and the officer can look from every angle, they command without obstacle.
from Quran's LightThe underlying assumption to the question is why only one thing is allowed to be uncreated .. ? Are there others like them, much like here on Earth where we have many authors writing many books? The Bible doesn't answer those at all, it starts in media res (despite its first three words!)
(I have other complaints about such a God but)
Isaiah 44:6-8 ESV
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. [7] Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. [8] Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
contradicting science is no great flaw. "Science" contradicts itself from time to time.
What I think the parent means by contradicting science is rather different: the Bible says things which go against ideas which we believe have been verified by evidence, but the Bible won’t be changed to reflect that understanding. On the other hand, science will change its idea of what it thinks to be true as more evidence becomes available. Nobody changes things in the Bible.
Pslams 95:3 ESV
For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Psalms 97:7 ESV
All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!
Deuteronomy 32:8 NRSV (less henotheistic in other translatins)
When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;
And there are others. We know pretty clearly from historical sources that the early Jews were henotheistic (recognized the existence of other gods, but only worshipped YHWH), and that is preserved in the oldest parts of the Old Testament. Even Genesis often uses a plural when God talks about his works - today that is often explained as talking about himself and the angels or even the holy trinity, but it is very likely it originally referred to the god of Israel and the other (lesser) gods in the heavens.
Because how can we even apprehend anything existing outside of time?