Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Simply because without a first cause, there can be no "one and only all everything God" to give credit to.If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
Simply because without a first cause, there can be no "one and only all everything God" to give credit to.
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
I don't.Why would you need a one and only all everything god?
Unless you have to have an all everything god in order to keep from being a bad evil person.Since everything is cause and affect, you can choose to attribute everything to the process rather than the origin.
In fact, if *all* things must be caused by something else, either there is 'cyclic causality' or there is an infinite regress of causes.
A 'first' cause would be something that is NOT caused, violating the hypothesis.
That is why, the universe is eternal with respect to time, and space. If there was a first cause, it would have had a starting point. But since there is no starting point then it is eternal in the past.If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
I don't.
But many many a Christian and many many a Muslim certainly do.
Unless you have to have an all everything god in order to keep from being a bad evil person.
That is why, the universe is eternal with respect to time, and space. If there was a first cause, it would have had a starting point. But since there is no starting point then it is eternal in the past.
To avoid the impractical position of an infinite chain of causes. For every cause (a) we find we would have to assume there is cause of (a) called (b) itself which in turn has a cause called (c) /repeat forever. We would have to assume there is a chain of contingent causes going back forever based only on an assumption that the model of infinite chains is true.
As I said in the edit:Christianity aside. In general. A lot of people put emphasis on the origin. Say where we came from to carry the legacy. The reverence of one's ancestors. Others put more emphasis on the process. The view of the "present moment" or living life as it comes.
What's the significance of the first cause when everything is in the process of cause and affect (change, formation, etc)?
As I said in the edit:
The only time I ever hear the "First Cause" it is from a monotheist blowing a big gaping hole in their own "proof of God" argument.
Essentially, they are claiming God is an exception to their claim that something has to come from something.
Since I have no familiarity with the term, idea, etc. outside of that, I will have to contemplate your question
Personally, I do not really care one way or the other.I haven't really thought of it myself. I never really felt there was a first cause and never needed one. Something to think about nonetheless.
Is there something wrong with believing in infinite chain of causes?
Is it confusing for people? Too mysterious?
how exactly is that a bad thing?Yes as there is no true beginning of anything. There is no starting point of existence at all.
How is it any different from your above quoted part?It is impractical and an assertion.
IMHO, first cause is a dicey thing, very 'Quantum like'. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. Our perspective is existence, we do not know non-existence.If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
Polymath says in another topic:Invite @Polymath257 to comment.
I am not aware of this knowledge. So, has scientists agreed that the universe is eternal, or is that rather not an obsolete theory, with no supporting evidence?That is why, the universe is eternal with respect to time, and space. If there was a first cause, it would have had a starting point. But since there is no starting point then it is eternal in the past.
No, not in the absolute sense.Nice.
Do you believe in a first cause?