• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

First cause

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

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.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Why would you need a one and only all everything god?
I don't.
But many many a Christian and many many a Muslim certainly do.

Since everything is cause and affect, you can choose to attribute everything to the process rather than the origin.
Unless you have to have an all everything god in order to keep from being a bad evil person.


Edited to add:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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.

Which can't be possible without breaking the laws of nature (whichever word is appropriate to the context)?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
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.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

A cause is an effect and an effect is a cause. It is simply a matter of how you order things.

The idea of a "First Cause" I don't see as something that is supportable.

I think it would be easier to argue that there must not be a first cause. Perhaps even go so far as saying a first cause is not logical.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

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.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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.

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)?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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.

Is there something wrong with believing in infinite chain of causes?

Is it confusing for people? Too mysterious?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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

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.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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.
Personally, I do not really care one way or the other.
If the truth of it were to be revealed, it would not change my life outside what others do with the information that directly involves me.

That being said, I have no reason to believe there is a "first cause".
Of course, at this point, I can not discount that I am prejudiced about it do to my only ever hearing about it in failed attempts to "prove god".
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?
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.
Invite @Polymath257 to comment.
Polymath says in another topic:
"Third, by considering the universe throughout *both* space and time, the notion of causality is eliminated: causes require time. So the notion of a cause only makes sense *within the universe*."
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
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?
If so, and the universe did have a starting point, would it not require a cause, and if it does, then would there not be a first cause, which would / could be that starting point - requiring no cause, since it would be eternal?
 
Top