Final answer:
The question engages with the cosmological argument, which suggests an initial cause for the universe's existence, usually designated as God. Counterarguments propose either an eternal universe or quantum mechanics as alternatives that do not require a divine cause, challenging the necessity of a God as a singular necessary entity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed, "If everything has a cause, and God was the first cause, then who made God?" engages the philosophical cosmological argument. This questioning line is part of a larger debate on the existence and nature of causation and the divine, often considered within the realm of metaphysics. The argument posits that if everything has a cause, then there must have been a first cause, typically designated as God. This notion has historically aimed to provide a basis for the existence of a deity as the ultimate explanation for the universe.
However, counterarguments pose that if we can conceptualize God as an uncaused, necessary being, why not instead propose that the universe itself is eternal? This challenges the premise by suggesting the universe could operate in an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction, thereby negating the need for a divine first cause. This view embraces the rebuttal querying the necessity of a higher being if energy itself could potentially serve as an uncaused cause.
Clarke's 'Argument from Contingency' and the 'Fallacy of Composition' both address concerns about attributing the existence of all contingent beings to a singular necessary entity. The rebuttal to the Kalam cosmological argument goes further to suggest that some events, such as those in quantum mechanics, may not require causes, thus potentially uprooting the foundational rule driving these philosophical inquiries.