For starter, I'm not a student in philosophy, but mathematics. I only have a general knowledge in logic and set theory, all in the context of mathematics. My question comes from a doubt I got while discussing arguments for the existence of God.
The discussion based around the argument that God exists because everything needs a creator, then someone asked the obvious question:
If everything has a creator, who created God?
To which someone responded that that is as nonsensical as asking
If every painting has a painter, who painted the painter?
My response was that the "every" in the second question only quantifies over painting and since a painter is not a painting, the question "who painted the painter" is meaningless, as the premise "every painter has a painter" is false. On the other hand, the "every" in "everything" means, at least to me and Wikipedia, "all things" or "all that exists". In particular, if we presume God exists, it falls within the range of the quantifier and so to ask "who created God" is reasonable.
The person then replies by stating:
God is not a thing, he's a being and exempt from the statement "Everything has a creator"
which made me wonder about the meaning of "everything". According to the definition I used, to say that God falls outside the range of "everything" means that it doesn't exist.
As expressed here, if I understand correctly, to define "everything" as "all that exists" is naive, since it transfers the discussion to what "existence" means. I would then say that:
If we start with the premise "God exists", we mean that whatever definition of "existence" we're using, we assume God falls within the class of all existing things according to such definition. In particular, it still falls within the range of the quantifier "everything" and the question "who created God?" is justified
At this point, I don't care about the discussion anymore, but I'd like to know if the last argument is valid or too naive. Sorry if the question is overly basic, as I said, I never studied philosophy, so there's always a chance I'm missing something that undermines my argument.