On Refuting the 1st Cause Argument

On Refuting the 1st Cause Argument

By Nelson Gozah⚕️

The question still remains, in what way did life originate, however far back in time its beginning may have been?

Science does not provide any solution. It puts forward a tentative theory that sentient life appeared on this earth through a technical process combined with the action of cosmic rays and the heat of the sun. But this is only a theory, and may-well be modified, though it is interesting to note in passing that the pre-lotus(povisional) Buddhist doctrine that living beings appeared through the action of tejo (kinetic energy) combined with: utu (utu meaning arisen from seasonable circumstances and physical law of causation), offers a similar explanation so far as mundane life is concerned.

Theistic religion also fails to answer the question. In ascribing the origin of living creatures to a Creator-god it still leaves unanswered the problem of how and why the god himself came into being. If a god can exist, though uncreated, there is no reason why the other phenomena of the universe should not exist without having been created also.

In fact, it is indeed blasphemous to “Life” with it’s enormous splendor and wonder if we literally ascribe it’s creation to a person or a being in human-likeness!!!…

This is fallacy of special pleading and it occurs when someone makes an exception to a rule without justification. In this case, the argument that a god can exist without being created is making an exception to the rule that everything in the universe requires a cause or explanation for its existence.

This is a fallacy because there is no justification for why a god should be exempted from this rule, while other phenomena in the universe are not. If we accept that a god can exist without being created, then we must also accept the possibility that other phenomena in the universe could exist without being created as well, without invoking the need for a god to explain their existence. This highlights the inconsistency or arbitrary nature of the special pleading argument and that, technically speaking, saying that god has no cause or whatsoever is tantanmount to saying there is no reason at all for god’s existence. And if there exist no reason or no rationale for god’s existence, then no need having this conversation!!!..Because there would not be anything to talk about then..Hence making this argument not necessary at all.

The 1st Cause argument

The first cause argument states that everything that exists must have a cause, and there must be an uncaused first cause – God – to get the whole causal chain started. However, in adopting a Buddhist perspective, this argument fails for several reasons:

1. It assumes that everything must have a single, determinate cause. But according to the Buddhist concept of dependent origination, things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions. There is no single cause for anything. All things are impermanent and interdependent and co-arises simultaneously ad infinitum So there is no need to posit an “uncaused” first cause.

2. The argument that “everything that exists must have a cause” contradicts its own conclusion that there must be an uncaused first cause. If everything needs a cause, then so too must God. If God can be uncaused, then why not the universe? There is no logically coherent reason to posit God as the default “uncaused cause”.

3. In Buddhism, the universe and all phenomena are in truth beginningless. There is no first moment in time when everything arose. And so, there is no need for a “first cause” to get everything started. Things have always been arising and passing away in beginningless time due to the interaction of various causes and conditions.

4. Attributing the cause of the universe to God explains nothing and answers no questions. It only raises more questions: What caused God? Why did God create the universe? As an explanation, it is redundant. The universe is better explained by the natural arising of phenomena due to karma and dependent origination.

5. There is no evidence that a deity like God as postulated in the first cause argument actually exists. Until there is evidence, there is no reason to believe that the cause of the universe is anything other than the natural interplay of karma, causes and conditions as described in Buddhist thought.

The metaphysical framework of Buddhism, based on karma, dependent origination and multiple causes, offers an alternative explanation for the origin and continuity of phenomena without needing to appeal to theistic concepts of first cause.

Thus, from my perspective I will conclude that from a Buddhist perspective, the first cause argument fails to prove the existence of God as the uncaused cause. The universe and all within it can be better explained without needing to posit a creator God.

References:

Nagarjuna, “Mulamadhyamakakarika” – In this seminal text, Nagarjuna outlines the Buddhist concept of dependent origination, which rejects the idea of a single first cause and maintains that all things arise interdependently due to multiple causes and conditions.
Vasubandhu, “Abhidharmakosa” – Vasubandhu describes the Buddhist concept of the nine consciousnesses, particularly the storehouse consciousness which is the carrier of karmic seeds from past lives. This rejects the notion of a singular first cause by explaining rebirth and continuity of existence without needing to appeal to a creator.
Buddhaghosa, “Visuddhimagga” – Buddhaghosa discusses dependent origination and the empty and conditioned nature of phenomena, arguing against the existence of a permanent first cause or creator of the universe.
Jayatilleke, K.N., “Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge” – Jayatilleke analyzes early Buddhist epistemology and conceptions of causality, arguing that they reject the idea of a single uncaused first cause in favor of interdependent causation and an infinite causal regress.
Kalupahana, D.J., “Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism” – Kalupahana examines Buddhist doctrines of interdependent co-arising and causality from a philosophical perspective, arguing against the necessity of positing a first cause creator.

These and other Buddhist philosophical texts provide arguments and perspectives that fundamentally contradict and refute the first cause argument for the existence of God.

Share this: