The following statement seems to summarize very efficiently what is believed in most western religions and philosophies.
“Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”
Judaism emphasizes God as the ultimate creator. Christianity makes God a personal being. Islam seems to de-emphasize that identity of a personal being by declaring God to be formless. However, God is still retained as the cause of all existence.
Spinoza starts his philosophical system with the premise of “uncaused Cause.” Aristotle starts his philosophical system with the premise of “unmoved Mover.” The system of philosophy that follows from either premise is pretty rational. But the underlying premise is at best arbitrary.
Regardless of how rational a system of philosophy might appear, the logical consistency of that system is set by its starting postulate.
Let’s examine the premise of “Cause.” It is taken for granted by the western religions. Cause is supposed to be there before the beginning of a manifestation. The question then arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?”
If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right. The question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.
If the answer is “no” then the “Cause” must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation as the beginning. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning.
Cause is a projection backward that is created after the fact of beginning.
This is consistent with the idea that time itself would start at the beginning, and there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.” Cause would, therefore, be a consideration created at the beginning. As there is no “before the beginning,” Beyond the beginning would be unknowable. See Knowable and Unknowable.
The premise “uncaused cause” seems to be an attempt to fix the unwieldy conclusion of the endless chain of causes when Cause is assumed to exist all by itself. “Uncaused cause” is just another arbitrary consideration. No wonder it appears to be self-contradictory.
“Uncaused cause” is a consideration that is self-contradictory.
CAUSE is part of the creation, and has no meaning prior to the creation as assumed in the statement at the beginning of this essay. Neither “Cause,” nor “Uncaused cause” is an independent premise. It is part of the system of philosophy it generates.
The system of western religion and philosophy is made up of interdependent considerations. They are not linear but they form more like a circle. We may visualize this system as a sphere of consideration, which is ballooning out from a premise at its center. The premise is forever contained within this sphere; and it cannot lead to anything beyond that sphere.
What is beyond the sphere of considerations may only be speculated. But a speculation being a consideration would remain within that sphere.
The assumption that the consideration of “Cause” can extend beyond the “system of considerations” seems to be the basic inconsistency.
“Cause” may appear to be consistent but only within a system of consideration and not beyond. What is beyond is unknowable and it cannot be symbolized as Cause.
.
Glossary
Starting Postulate
No matter how rational a system of philosophy might appear, if the starting postulate is inconsistent, the whole philosophical system would ultimately become unsustainable. The starting postulates, such as, “uncaused cause,” and “unmoved mover” are inconsistent in themselves. Therefore, the philosophical systems based on such postulates have become unsustainable in spite of all the effort to make them appear rational.
.
