Isn't "Who Created God" a flawed argument?

Actually, the "who created god" argument stems from the theological argument that everything has a creator.

And then the person goes on to qualify it by saying "except god" with no proof to back up either of those statements.

I agree, it doesn't really work with the conservation of energy/mass argument, but then, no one said that non-creationists couldn't use flawed arguments.

You set great store by the premise that "space", whether "outer" or that "between atoms" has "always been", therefore does not have a beginning. The way I understand it, the two concepts "time" and "space" both came into being with the birth of the Universe. Otherwise, how could the questions be answered 'Does the Universe have a boundary? If it does, what's on the other side?' The answer is that the Universe creates space as it expands. It is expanding into total "nothingness" - a concept which is impossible for us to comprehend, being inhabitants of that Universe-created space.

"Space" was created, just as mass was. The only difference is, space is still being created, as the Universe expands.

As for the "God" bit, there are more than a few cosmological theories floating around to explain where the matter in the "Big Band" came from that don't rely on the existence of a "God" figure.

Three points:

1. "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed" blows the need for a creator right out of the water.

2. Current science is starting to learn that, yes, we can figure out what happened before the Big Bang, and it wasn't god...it was a contractionary universe that "bounced back" before it could collapse into a singularity. So the argument is even more irrelevant on the "the universe had a defined beginning" side of things.

3. Defining God as the "ultimate beginning" by necessity does not answer the question of why the universe (physical realm of matter/energy) can't be ultimate, as the points above make clear that it very well might be.

No, it's not a flawed question. It exposes the biased and inconsistent reasoning of Theists. If we're gonna infer a designer of the universe based on its complexity then to be consistent we must also infer a designer of God based on his complexity. To arbitrarily apply your complexity-equals-designer logic to the universe and not to God is not consistent and objective argumentation. "It would seem as if people have a problem believing in an eternal God but if you believe that matter and energy and the laws of nature were already there then you believe in something that is eternal." There is scientific evidence that energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another. One of those forms is matter. So if matter and energy are eternal they had no beginning and always existed, therefore they were not created, therefore there is no creator - no God. So it's far more reasonable to believe that energy is eternal and somehow "evolved" (for want of a better word) into the universe as we know it than to believe that an intelligent, complex, all-powerful person resides outside the universe and is responsible for bring it about. Try learning how to reason before parroting the words of others.

"God has no matter" is, for all intents and purposes, an identical statement to "God does not exist."

I appreciate your original thought, but this is a load of nonsense.

The "creationist" argument goes: An "actual infinite" cannot exist. Therefore the universe must be finite, and must have had a beginning, and therefore a cause. So far so good. But they naturally proceed to identify this Cause with "God," and with the Judeo-Christian God in particular, although there is not the flimsiest excuse for doing so even within the context of their argument.

But then the further question "What created God?" is absolutely pertinent, since they've only introduced "God" to account for the origin of the universe. Unfortunately, their inevitable answer, "God is eternal," is an evident refutation of the very premise upon which they've erected their entire argument! (I.e. that an "actual infinite" cannot exist.)

I mean, you can define "God" as the exception to all the rules you've followed to arrive at that definition, but that seems rather cheap sport. But that's what theists typically do - they rename their ignorance "God," and then sit back and fold their arms and act pleased with themselves, as if they've actually explained something. You can't blame others for calling them out on this.

Any argument that presupposes the existence of God is flawed. But if a creationist uses the old nonsensical argument: "If there's no God, then who created the universe?" then it's perfectly reasonable to respond with "Okay then, who created God?" to point out the glaring gap of logic in that position. If everything has to have a creator to exist, then, if God exists, he must also have a creator. And if God has no beginning and no end, then why can't that be true of matter and energy? Perfectly sound reasoning.

You say "God has no matter"... well, how do you know? Does it say that somewhere in the Bible? Is there some empirical evidence to that effect?

Can something without energy create a universe? Any idea of God can't be equated with the empty mass space between atoms.

Matter CAN be destroyed to create energy. Or to put it more scientifically, mass and energy are nterconvertible. its the sum total of both which is constant.

and there is a difference between NOTHING and empty space. In your argument you've only taken the 4 humanly perceivable dimensions into account. 'god' may not have mass but that does not mean he's not a part of the universe.

the absence/creation of matter isn't the argument, it's against the intelligent design aspect.

the fact of the matter is, in the science vs god argument, neither matter nor energy can be created out of nothing. Where science has the upper hand is it doesn't claim that the universe is indefinite. (also does god have 'matter'?)

But there can't be intelligence out of nothing... the argument FOR the God as an intelligent designer hinges upon the fact that something intelligent is required to create something (less) complex.

I agree the argument has flaws, but so does the proposition.

Your argument here is illogical. Gods are not the same as vacuums at all. There is evidence for matter, energy and vacuum but none for gods, spirits or souls. We do not know the universe has not always existed. You say it, but I doubt it. There are various theories about what came before the Big Bang. One is that there are cycles of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches. You are the one using a terrible argument.