Argument for the First Cause - Part 1:2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 (KJV)
After reviewing some recent debates with respectable atheists, I found it necessary to bring the First Cause Argument onto this blog and give it some much-needed explanation. (Besides – First Cause Argument -> First Topic post)
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 (KJV)
After reviewing some recent debates with respectable atheists, I found it necessary to bring the First Cause Argument onto this blog and give it some much-needed explanation. (Besides – First Cause Argument -> First Topic post)
The First Cause Argument (FCA) was originally penned by St. Aquinas * in the Summa Theologica. This would later be the second of the Quinquae Viae (Latin, Five Ways) and is one of the most cited and, consequently, debated topic for the existence of God. The FCA attempts to establish the idea that the universe, composed of contingent objects, must have a first cause that is not reliant upon other contingent objects.
While I wish to clarify FCA’s definitions, arguments, and conclusions, I am more concerned with providing the necessary tools to effectively combat the debate in favour of God’s existence and strengthen our faith. I will not defend against the counter-arguments towards the FCA; they will be addressed in part 2:2.
*Other variations have been written by Plato and Aristotle
Definitions:
Def 1: Cause – Something that brings an effect
Def 2: Efficient Cause - A prior condition, entity, or event considered to have caused the thing in question
Def 3: Intermediate Cause – A cause that exists between the efficient and ultimate cause.
Def 4: Effect – Something that is produced by a cause
Def 5: Ultimate Effect – The future effect
Def 6: Causation – Is the act or process of causing
The Cosmological Argument for the First Cause by St. Aquinas
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. – St. Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Pt.1, Q2, Art.3; pg 13)*, Quinquae Viae (Latin: Five Ways)
The Cosmological Argument Explained:
We are who we are, because we are what we were. This historical cliché states that civilizations and their people are conditioned by their predecessors in some way. A nation of war could have been a nation of defeat, or perhaps a nation of religious freedom was founded because of a prior nation’s religious suppression. Even technological advancements by prior minds affect generations to come. You may not be familiar with a scythe nor a Beta Tape, but perhaps you use a tractor or Blu-ray device.
You may be wondering how this applies to the Argument for the First cause. To believe that we are who we were, is to believe that what we are today is attributed to times past; or our reliance upon prior beings. We have all heard of time marching forward, but we never speak of it as jumping up or diving below; even back-pedalling is contrary to what we understand. In this, we see that time moves in one direction; if we are to trace contingent beings, we must start by going backwards. The Argument of the first cause, in other words, is the argument of reverse-sequence of all contingent objects (human and nonhuman).
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. – St. Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Pt.1, Q2, Art.3; pg 13)*, Quinquae Viae (Latin: Five Ways)
The Cosmological Argument Explained:
We are who we are, because we are what we were. This historical cliché states that civilizations and their people are conditioned by their predecessors in some way. A nation of war could have been a nation of defeat, or perhaps a nation of religious freedom was founded because of a prior nation’s religious suppression. Even technological advancements by prior minds affect generations to come. You may not be familiar with a scythe nor a Beta Tape, but perhaps you use a tractor or Blu-ray device.
You may be wondering how this applies to the Argument for the First cause. To believe that we are who we were, is to believe that what we are today is attributed to times past; or our reliance upon prior beings. We have all heard of time marching forward, but we never speak of it as jumping up or diving below; even back-pedalling is contrary to what we understand. In this, we see that time moves in one direction; if we are to trace contingent beings, we must start by going backwards. The Argument of the first cause, in other words, is the argument of reverse-sequence of all contingent objects (human and nonhuman).
We begin by addressing the dilemma of contingency. In the universe, every object is finite and thus contingent, or reliant, upon prior objects. There are no known objects, or possibilities of objects, who could be the cause of themselves – to be the cause of yourself would imply being prior to yourself, which is false.
Similarly, the cause of an effect cannot be the effect itself. For example, if I asked you why your ball is bouncing, you may respond, “Because it is red.” But if I then asked, “Why is it red?” and your reply was, “Because it is bouncing,” your argument is invalid because of self-substantiating.
This begs the question, “Can there be an infinite regress of contingent beings?” We know that a cause can have an effect, and that effect, in turn, can cause another effect until the Ultimate effect, in a seemingly infinite future. However, does this concept apply to the past? The simple answer is no.
St. Aquinas, and later Modern Mathematical Set Theory, supported this answer by asking, “Is Infinity + 1 greater or lesser than infinity?” The answer is, “They are equal”. As Blaise Pascal, a French Mathematician, once stated, “The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite.” The impact of this argument is that if you remove the efficient cause – which an infinite past asserts - you lose all intermediate causes, which eventually would deny an ultimate effect.
If I said that turning on your car caused you to drive to the store, and driving to the store caused you to buy something to eat, the ultimate effect would consist of you no longer being hungry. In this chain of causations if I took away starting the car, then you couldn’t go to the store, which then you wouldn’t get something to eat, and thus the ultimate effect would be denied; you would still be hungry. The chain depends upon whether or not there is a first cause; this is where the infinite regression of dependent causes fail. You cannot maintain a necessary cause – a first cause - by adding a large group of contingent causes to already contingent causes. It is similar to adding an infinite pile of apples to a box of apples to get an orange.
The finite is contingent, the contingent necessitates a non-contingent cause, and the non-contingent cause is God. This is the argument and its conclusion. Outside of all contingency there must have been a necessary cause that began our road. In the Beginning we are who we were because something began. And that beginning was created by God.
I hope this article provided more help than confusion, that you faith would be strengthen in understanding that God’s existence can be known and proven. Also, below I attached another example to further explain the relations of causes and effects.
Finite Chain Example:
Imagine sitting at a table with ten dominos standing, right up next to each other, upon the table’s surface – we will call them D1, D2, D3… D10 – and I hit D1 over. What will happen? D1 will knock over D2, D2 will knock over D3, and this will continue until they knock over D10. This action, of all the dominos falling over, is our chain of causations (it began with me and ended with D10; our chain does not go on for infinity). Within this chain of causations (Def. 6), we have contained all the prior definitions. I was the cause (Def. 1) for D1 falling over, D1 falling over was the effect (Def. 4) of me pushing D1 over. The cause of D2 falling over was D1 falling over and the effect of D2 falling over is D3 falling over. This system would continue until D10 fell over, completing our chain of causation. Now every cause (as we listed prior) from D1 – D9 are called intermediate causes (Def. 3) because they are neither the first cause nor the ultimate effect; the first cause is me, the ultimate effect is D10 falling over. Now here is the hard part. We would call everything falling over from D1 to D10, the Ultimate effect (Def. 5) of my pushing D1. Also all causes prior to D10 are efficient causes to D10 falling over (Def. 2 - so you would have 9 efficient causes including me because we are counting all causes before D10). This system can be calculated from any Domino. D9 would have 9 causes including me -you don’t count D9 as a cause of itself falling over – and 1 effect (the ultimate effect of D10 falling over). Likewise, D8 would have 8 causes and 1 effect ( the effect of D9 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over ), D7 would have 7 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D8 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), D6 would have 6 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D7 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), etc… This would continue until every domino was labeled properly.
*Summa Theologica - Copyright 1948 by Benziger Bros., New York, NY; Inquiries send to: Christian Classics, P.O. Box 428, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Finite Chain Example:
Imagine sitting at a table with ten dominos standing, right up next to each other, upon the table’s surface – we will call them D1, D2, D3… D10 – and I hit D1 over. What will happen? D1 will knock over D2, D2 will knock over D3, and this will continue until they knock over D10. This action, of all the dominos falling over, is our chain of causations (it began with me and ended with D10; our chain does not go on for infinity). Within this chain of causations (Def. 6), we have contained all the prior definitions. I was the cause (Def. 1) for D1 falling over, D1 falling over was the effect (Def. 4) of me pushing D1 over. The cause of D2 falling over was D1 falling over and the effect of D2 falling over is D3 falling over. This system would continue until D10 fell over, completing our chain of causation. Now every cause (as we listed prior) from D1 – D9 are called intermediate causes (Def. 3) because they are neither the first cause nor the ultimate effect; the first cause is me, the ultimate effect is D10 falling over. Now here is the hard part. We would call everything falling over from D1 to D10, the Ultimate effect (Def. 5) of my pushing D1. Also all causes prior to D10 are efficient causes to D10 falling over (Def. 2 - so you would have 9 efficient causes including me because we are counting all causes before D10). This system can be calculated from any Domino. D9 would have 9 causes including me -you don’t count D9 as a cause of itself falling over – and 1 effect (the ultimate effect of D10 falling over). Likewise, D8 would have 8 causes and 1 effect ( the effect of D9 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over ), D7 would have 7 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D8 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), D6 would have 6 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D7 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), etc… This would continue until every domino was labeled properly.
*Summa Theologica - Copyright 1948 by Benziger Bros., New York, NY; Inquiries send to: Christian Classics, P.O. Box 428, Notre Dame, IN 46556
