Causality

[The causality argument is centerred in proving or disproving the first sentence of the Bible…“In the beginning God…”]

The principle of causality is a first principle. All first principles are self-evident. The principle may be stated in various ways, some more easily accepted than others. For example, it may be stated:

1. Every effect has a cause.

2. Every dependent (contingent) being is caused by another.

3. Every limited being is caused by another.

4. Every thing that comes to be is caused by another.

5. Nonbeing cannot cause being.

If the principle of causality is stated, “Every effect has a cause,” then it is undeniable.

In this form the principle of causality is analytically self-evident, since by an “effect” is meant what is caused and by a “cause’ is meant what produces the effect. It is like saying, “Every triangle has three sides.”

However, there is a difficulty with stating the principle in this way for a theist who wishes to use it to prove the existence of God. It simply shifts the burden of the proof back on the theist, who must show that contingent, finite, and/or temporal beings are effects. While this can be done, it is not so useful as to use the form, “Non-being cannot produce being.” [This puts the burden of proof upon the atheist…to try and prove that a being can actually come from a non-being.] But the question remains as to whether this form is self-evident or undeniable.

Statement 5 can be defended by defining terms. “Nonbeing cannot cause being” because only being can cause something to exist. Nonbeing is nothing; it does not exist. And what does not exist has no power to produce anything. Only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies that some existing thing has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. Or it can be more popularly phrased, “Nothing comes from nothing.”

Only something can produce something. Many philosophers hold that this principle is known to be true intuitively and is self-evident. But if someone does not accept this as self-evident, the statement can be still be defended.

[Atheist David Hume makes the point] that it is not absurd to say that nothing can be followed by something. Hume himself denies that something can be caused by nothing: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause” (The Letters of David Hume).

Theists readily accept Hume’s statement. For example, a state in which there was no world was followed by a state in which a world existed (after God created it). That is, nothing (no world) followed by something (a world). There is no inherent contradiction in saying that nothing can be followed by something. The problem arises in saying that nothing can produce or cause something. [Atheists use Hume’s argument to try and still support their Big Bang theory, which is centerred in nothing coming from something.]

The importance of [this] truth begins to surface when it is stated another way: If there were ever absolutely nothing (including God), then there would always be absolutely nothing (including God).

Some atheists argue that there is no need for a cause. They insist that there is nothing incoherent about something coming into existence from nothing. This is contrary to reality as it is known and lived and to the scientific enterprise, which seeks a causal explanation. It is counterintuitive to believe that things just pop into and out of existence. Those who hold such a position must also face the fact that something that does not even exist has no power to do anything.

What comes to be may be a contingent being, which by nature is capable of either existing or not existing [(though God and is the only non-contingent Being; souls exist forever, but are totally contingent on God’s existence for this state of being]. Something separate from the contingent being has to determine that it comes into existence. So, everything that came to be must be caused, since there must be some efficient action which causes it to pass from a state of potentiality (potency) to a state of actuality (act).

Everything that comes to be is caused by another. The universe came to be. Therefore, the universe was caused by another. Of course, one must show that the universe came to be. This the theist does by science and philosophy (Big Bang). [Thus, one must declare that at one time the universe was not existing, and then, at some time it came into existence. This is impossible to prove, of course… one must take it ultimately by faith.]

[Another important principle to consider is that] effects resemble their causes in their being. The universe manifests intelligent design in its being. Therefore, the universe has an intelligent Designer.

[The atheists respond with this principle]: If everything is caused, so is God. This objection is based on a misunderstanding. The principle of causality does not affirm that everything has a cause. It only asserts that everything that has a beginning (and so is finite) needs a cause. For example, if the universe had no beginning, then it does not need a cause of its beginning. Likewise, if God had no beginning, then neither does he need a cause. Only what has a beginning needs a cause. But few people argue that the universe had no beginning. Ultimately the universe needs a Cause that does not have a beginning, for the universe cannot spring into being out of nothing [(i.e. Big Bang rationale).]

Some critics argue that even if there may have once been a cause of the beginning of the universe, there does not need to be one now [(termed the ‘Here-and-Now Cause’)]. Either such a Cause has gone out of existence, or else it may still be in existence but is not required for continually sustaining the universe.

The theistic God demonstrated by the cosmological argument cannot have caused the universe and then subsequently ceased to exist. The theistic God is a Necessary Being, and a Necessary Being cannot cease to be. If it exists, it must by its very nature exist necessarily. A Necessary Being cannot exist in a contingent mode any more than a triangle can exist in a five-sided mode. A Necessary Being must continue to cause its contingent being(s). A contingent being must remain contingent as long as it exists, since it can never become a Necessary Being. [Thus, man can never become God.]

If a contingent being is always contingent, then it always needs a Necessary Being on which it depends for its existence. Since no contingent being holds itself in existence, it must have a Necessary Being to hold it from going into nonexistence—at all times.

What clouds the understanding [with atheists] is the confusion of an effect with an after-effect. For example, when the ball is thrown, it continues to move after the thrower is no longer throwing it. The clock continues to run after it is wound. However, in these and similar examples, the after-effect is also being directly and simultaneously effected by some cause, after the original cause is gone. The force of inertia keeps the baseball moving; the forces of tension and reaction keep the spring moving the clock. If any of these forces would go out of existence, the after-effect would stop dead. If inertia ceased the very instant after the bail left my hand, the ball would instantly stop in midair. Likewise, the clock would stop ticking the instant the physical laws effecting it were no longer operative. Every so-called after-effect is only an effect of some simultaneous cause(s).

Whatever is, exists in the here-and-now. And whatever is being caused to exist right now must have something causing it to exist right now. A basic distinction will help illustrate the point. The artist is not the cause of the being of a painting; he is only the cause of the becoming (or coming to be) of the painting. The painting continues to be after the artist takes his hands away from the canvas. The father does not cause the being of the son, but only causes the son’s becoming, for when the father dies the son continues to live.

[The Principle of Causality is important to comprehend so that one can effectively reprove the Atheists’ argument of the Big Bang, or ‘something coming from nothing’. The principle is centerred on the ‘I AM’ principle; God’s eternal self-existence.]

(Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler)