Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Looking for an insightful take on the ‘Uncaused Cause Fallacy?’ Explore a comprehensive response to this critique, grounded in philosophy and theology, which clarifies the complexities of the First Cause or Uncaused Cause argument and its implications for our perception of God and the universe.

ONLINE BIBLE CRITIC

Uncaused Cause Fallacy—‘Everything has a cause.. except my god. He has just always existed…No more questions, please.’ It’s an exception to an accepted rule – plus, there is no proof for that claim. It’s logically flawed. By invoking a “god” we are simply introducing new problems … did an even more complex creator create the complex creator.. ad infinitum? If a preferred imagined creator doesn’t need a creator, then neither does the universe, which is clearly real.

RESPONSE TO CRITIC

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement, and I’d like to address your concerns.

Firstly, you’ve highlighted what is known as the Cosmological Argument, specifically the concept of a First Cause or Uncaused Cause, which suggests that if everything in existence has a cause, there must have been an initial cause to set off the chain of causation—in this case, we refer to that as God. This doesn’t necessarily present an exception to the rule but rather an explanation for the rule’s existence in the first place.

As for your point about the need for proof of God’s existence, it’s worth mentioning that many aspects of life and knowledge are reliant on unprovable assumptions. For example, we assume that our senses provide an accurate representation of the world, yet we cannot definitively prove this. Additionally, many principles in science, like the concept of uniformitarianism in geology (the present is the key to the past), can’t be definitively proven but are widely accepted. In a similar vein, the concept of God as an Uncaused Cause is a philosophical proposition, a foundational assumption from which further reasoning can proceed.

When we discuss the infinite regression problem, that is, who created the Creator and so on, this predicament occurs because we’re applying temporal and spatial principles (which belong to our universe) to a being who is conceived to exist outside of time and space. It’s akin to asking, “What’s north of the North Pole?” The question itself is a category mistake. The claim that God is uncaused is not arbitrarily exempting God from causality but is acknowledging that God is fundamentally different from the created contingent universe.

Regarding your final point, why the universe itself can’t be uncaused, the difference lies in the nature of the universe and God. The universe, as we know it, is bound by time, space, and physical laws; it had a beginning as currently accepted in Big Bang cosmology. However, anything bound by time logically cannot be eternal or uncaused. God, in the philosophical and theological understanding, is seen as a necessary being—meaning, a being whose non-existence is impossible, unlike the universe, which is a contingent being—its existence depends on something else.

While these ideas certainly invite deep contemplation and can be difficult to grasp fully, they are not logically inconsistent. They are instead attempts to grapple with profound questions about the nature of existence using the tools of logic, philosophy, and theology.

EASIER EXPLANATION RESPONSE

The idea you’re referring to is like a domino effect, but we need to know who pushed the first domino. We call that first pusher “God.” This doesn’t break the rules, but it explains how the whole domino chain got started.

As for wanting proof of God’s existence, we should remember that there are a lot of things we believe in even though we can’t fully prove them. For example, we trust that our eyes and ears tell us what’s really happening around us, even though we can’t 100% prove it. In the same way, the idea of God being the first cause is something we believe in to help us make sense of everything else.

The question about who made God is tricky because it’s like asking what’s north of the North Pole. There’s no real answer because the question doesn’t make sense. When we talk about God, we’re talking about someone who isn’t bound by the rules of time and space like we are.

Now, why can’t the universe have always existed like God? Well, we know from science that the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang). Anything that has a beginning can’t have always existed. But God, as we understand Him, didn’t have a beginning—He always existed, and it’s impossible for Him not to exist.

These ideas can be a bit tough to wrap your head around, but they’re not illogical. They’re our best attempts to answer really big questions about life and the universe using reason and belief.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).