Summary

The gist of this work is that for every event or effect, there is a cause, and every cause is caused by a prior cause, thus making the present cause an effect of the prior cause. When dealing with the original cause of the universe, we must ask ourselves whether the universe itself caused itself, being infinite and eternal in itself, or whether something else caused the universe? If the universe caused itself, then all there is is matter and the physical realm; if something else caused the universe, then it must be different than the universe, else it would be so similar to the universe as to be the universe: that something might be called “God,” wholly personal and immaterial.

Now, with the universe and God, we must ask, who or what caused each or either? To answer this question we must delve into the nature of eternality, which might be compared to, if not equated with, infinity. While an infinitude is not actually countable in the physical and material realm of the space-time continuum in which we live and while the universe has a beginning at the Big Bang, it seems to stand that the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. Hence, the cause of the universe must be external to it, namely, God.

If God is the cause of the universe, and the cause of the universe must be one within which there is room for multiplicity and diversity, then God must be one, singular as well as diverse or plural within that singularity. That is to say that God, being the cause of the universe, is not many gods or causes, but only one God, within whom there is room for diverse and numerous differences. The nature of infinitude as well as eternality is such that it affords no beginning nor ending of the being possessing such a trait or quality. Thus, God was caused by no one or no thing, other than ever existing, “finding” himself, as it were, ever and always having been.

Introduction: Causes and Origins

Beginning with Origins

The state of origins is that they are of or in such a way that there is always some thing that originates or gives rise to that other: if a thing has an origin, then it also has an originator. We see this all the time with children being begotten or birthed by their mothers. A motherless child would be an anomaly, indeed. However, who or what begat the first child and whence did such a person, thing, or force come from? It seems that we have two options before us: either the universe is some eternal, infinite, unending, timeless entity or God exists as the eternal, infinite, unending, timeless entity. Any other option either does not obtain or folds into one or the other of these two.

“God,” for instance, could be the devil or Satan, an evil genie out to deceive everyone that he/she/it is good or indifferent or what-have-you; still this being, evil as it may be, could be God. Thus, here, we are faced with the devil as God, indicating that the devil is God and is all those things that God is supposed to be (aside from good). However, for the origin of the universe to be evil and not good, as evil predicates upon good, would seem to indicate that the universe would not obtain under the guidance or rule of evil and would then implode upon itself or never begin to exist in the first place. Hence, we see that either the option of God as the devil folds back into a God existing as cause of the universe or there is no such entity and the universe, here as it is, is the cause of itself.

Then again, the origin of the universe could be some great and mighty impersonal force, like the Force of Star Wars; still this mighty force might be equated with the universe, as a ruling principle or aspect of the universe and the world. Or you might say, God is the universe: then, God plainly is no God as traditionally conceived by the three monotheistic religions of the world, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity; still, then, the universe is some eternal being or the eternal being is the universe, however you like it.

In any case, the only two options before us regarding the cause of the universe are that God is and caused the universe or there is only the universe and it caused itself.

Either/Or versus Both/And

The fact remains, indeed, that we have but an either/or option before us, and not a both/and: either God created all as conceived traditionally by the monotheists, or he did not. Either the universe is the eternal originator of all or it is not. If we conceive of the option as a both/and one, then we might well say that God is the universe or the universe is God or both God and the universe are one and the same or however we might want to construe it all. The problem with this, as above-mentioned, is that if God is the universe or the universe is God, then we really only have the universe as the originator of itself–or, conversely, we really only have God at the helm of the origination of the universe.

God cannot be the universe and the universe cannot be God for the simple reasons that (1) God is not material and (2) God is not impersonal. That God is not material causes other sorts of issues and problems, like how does the immaterial interact with or relate to the material and vice versa? But it also indicates that he is not of this world or universe, but is distinct from it. To convolute God as the universe is to make one or the other or both what neither truly is: God is not matter and matter is not God, if God should exist.

That God is not impersonal bears with it two implications: he is a person and he is not a force of nature. That he might act as a force of nature is no different than attributing such aspects of nature to a human being, saying, “She is a force of nature!” That God is not a force of nature or an object of nature indicates that he is a being of a kind that is something like us humans. That he is a person indicates, too, that he is much like us humans. However, he is, of course, unlike us humans, in that he is not material; so he is very much different from us, even as he is like us.

That this is an either/or option is not to diminish the fact that both God and the universe exist or coexist or are both eternal or what have you; it is to say that either God or the universe is the cause or originator of the universe and all therewith. The reason some say God is the universe, or something like that, it may be, is because God is not apparent or seen or felt or heard or whatever as distinct from the universe or nature. Some do see, feel, and hear God: some of those who do are not in their right minds; some are. In any case, the options are either that there is only the material universe or there is the material and the immaterial. Of course, we know that there is the material all around us, but the question is whether that is all there is, or whether there is something else or more.

Now, you may say, “Wait a minute! You just said that the option before us is an either/or one, but you just stated that there is either the material or both the material and the immaterial. How can you say that it is an either/or choice when you say that it’s both/and material and immaterial?”

Closely reading you have been, I would say, as well as the following: it is an either/or option because it either deals with reality as more complex than simple matter or with reality as simply simple matter. We are either mere products or byproducts of a physical universe or we are that of a nonphysical universe or God, or whatever you call the unknown and mysterious one beyond our comprehension.

Causes and Actors

The thing about causes is that there is always an actor as the cause of the cause, whether that be a personal agent, like a human being, spirit, or animal; or a simple, impersonal material object or force, like a rock or gravity. Now, the actor of a cause, also known as the cause of a cause, is also, as aforementioned, caused by another cause, itself being an effect of that prior cause. Thus, there are causes and effects, which follow from causes and themselves become causes of other effects.

This can all seem very confusing, but think of it in this way: imagine there is a line of dominos stretching off into the distance in either direction. Each domino represents a cause and the pushing of the very first domino will cause a chain reaction wherein all the other dominos will fall after that first one hits the second, and the second, the third, and so on, in succession until the end. The actor or cause of the downfall of the fist domino may be called the first or original cause.

Now, if the line of dominos went on forever, we should ask at least three questions: (1) how do or can we know that the line actually goes on forever? And (2) how could it be possible for the dominos to go on and on forever and ever? Furthermore, (3) what is or how is the first or original cause? The first question is about our knowledge of eternal or infinite things, while the second question is about the physical and metaphysical possibility of eternal and infinite things. And the third is about the nature of first or original causes or the first original cause.

Looking at Causes through the Kalam Cosmological Argument

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause,” so goes the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument, popularized in recent history by William Lane Craig, and presumably first proposed from within medieval Islamic scholasticism of the 11th century CE by the medieval Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali. Then, the argument continues, stating, “The universe is a being which began to exist. Thus, the universe has a cause.” And, of course, as the argument goes on, the cause of the universe is God.

Now, the Kalam cosmological argument has to do with the cause of the universe, which has a beginning, for which one might argue is true by citing the theory of the Big Bang or by citing the logical possibility of there being only a single origin of the universe or by citing the first cause arguments of both Aristotle and Aquinas. But if the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates that the universe has a cause because it began to exist at some point, then does it not beg the question of what or who caused the cause of the universe, even as a motherless child would? How can we make sense of a universe that has been caused by some uncaused cause, which we might call God? How can God be uncaused? Can God be uncaused?

To be sure, you may have picked up on it already, in the phrase “because it began to exist at some point.” What that means I will not unpack here, but for now, suffice it to say, that the rules concerning the beginning or beginnings of things or substances only apply to finite things and not infinite things, since infinite things are without beginning or end.

The Original Cause

The Singular Origin of the Universe

It seems to be the case that there is a singular origin of all and that within this singularity, there is plurality and/or diversity. This concept might explain both the unity and diversity we see in the universe as well as the world around us, in addition to illuminating, if not explaining, the doctrine of the Trinity. It also makes sense in light of the original infinite density of the universe prior to the Big Bang as well as the seemingly ever-expanding nature of the universe.

Plurality within the singular origin of the universe is logically possible, though the converse is not, for there cannot be a singularity within a plurality, as then the singularity would cease to be singular but would be many. That there can be a plurality within a singularity might be demonstrated in this way: imagine a sphere or a circle, within which there are innumerable smaller spheres or circles, respectively. The singularity is the singular exterior sphere or circle containing the plurality of such objects.

However, if we try to imagine it the other way, conversely, that is, we see that it quickly falls apart, for the plurality, however great or small, of spheres or circles might contain the singularity of a singular one within each object or shape, but that makes very little sense of the various objects or shapes that make up the diverse plurality. Indeed, the plurality might be grouped into a singularity, making the many one, that is, each part a part of the whole.

The universe and all reality hinges upon this very fact, evidenced by various ideas and conceptions of reality, one such being the single origin theory of the universe, commonly known as the Big Bang theory. Though there is debate in science over the legitimacy of the Big Bang theory, philosophically, it seems to stand that from one all arises.

Finitude, Infinitude, and Actuality

Even if all arises from one, might there be an infinitude of all these things that arise from this singularity, the infinitude having been buried deep within the singularity, even as the Big Bang theory posits? Possibly, but a true infinitude cannot exist in the physical reality of this universe because physical space is contained and limited, whether there is an actual edge of the universe or a curvature of the universe, as a torus. Science is still out on whether the universe is infinite or finite, but we might reason out philosophically the finitude of the physical space around us.

Imagine an infinitude could exist in physical space with physical objects. Then, we might have an infinite number of anything, whether that be cubic inches of space or cubic inches of water or any kind of matter. But to have an infinite number of any spatial object would require that we be able to identify such as an actual infinite–presumably, by counting each and every object, which would be impossible because we could never in a lifetime or an infinite number of lifetimes ever reach the end of the infinitude of objects that we would be counting, as a mathematical infinitude is not actually countable. Thus, we could never know for certain one way or the other whether there were actually an actual infinitude.

Not only that, an actual infinitude of physical objects would require an infinite amount of physical space. Herewith, however, is the crux of the issue: is matter, that is, the physical space of the universe, infinite? While science and observation currently do not give us definitive answers in this regard, we might reason from the fact that the singular origin of the universe in the Big Bang gives us some indication that the universe is at least finite in one direction, back to its inception.

This, of course, only begs the question, for what was before the Big Bang? And what caused the Big Bang? And what caused the cause of the Big Bang? As there can be no infinite regress, a la Aristotle, etc., there must be some first original cause of all. And, as indicated above, there is but one origin of the universe, wherein there is a plurality or diversity, of or from which has come all the diverse pluralities of the world and universe that we now behold.

The Big Bang and Original Infinite Density

Still, it has been said that all matter and energy at the point of the Big Bang was infinitely dense, contained in whatsoever it was contained, if anything at all (which we cannot even rightly conceive, that is, nothingness)–all matter and energy bound up in itself in an infinitely dense unit. Now, how can this be, all contained in an infinitely dense unit? That is, how can a unit be infinitely dense in actual reality, if in reality there cannot be an actual infinity?

It seems this lies in a supposition based on the observation that the universe is ever expanding. But the expansion of the universe, as we currently and presently observe it, and suppose it has always been occurring, at least, in the last several billion light years or so, might not continue; indeed, it may reverse, and all the universe may collapse back in on itself, thereby imploding, as it were, thus indicating that the universe is not infinite and that the universe from its inception was not infinitely dense.

Speculation aside, however, we might find in the fact that the origin of the universe, as put forth in the Big Bang theory, indicates that the universe began some finite amount of time ago as an infinite density. This seems to indicate that there was then an infinitude within a finitude, with is absurd. This is much like saying that on the length of a ruler there is, within that length, an infinitude; we may see the ruler limited in its finitude by 12 inches or whatever it measures out, and we may extrapolate that between each inch there are an infinite number of segments of minimal inches in infinitesimal decimals, but then we are no longer looking at the actual ruler but a theoretical one, beheld only in the mind’s eye.

There can be no infinitude within a finitude, as then the finitude would cease to be such and would be an infinitude. Now, there can be a finitude within an infinitude, as we see all the time with the number line: there are segments of the number line that are finite and limited within the stretch of the infinite number line.

Time is considered the last aspect of our four-dimensional universe, the third dimension being space; the second, being two-dimensional shapes or flat surfaces; and the first, being lines, dots, or points. Now, within the finitude of time, as the Big Bang theory posits that the universe began at some point in the distant past, some 13.8 billion light years ago, there supposedly exists an infinitude of space. It may seem apparent that there is no contradiction here, but there is, and it is this: if time is finite, though it be as a mathematical ray, beginning at one point and stretching ever into the infinite future, we could (1) never know it, that is, its end, and (2) it could not contain all the space that it would need to contain.

That we could never know it is apparent from the fact that the end of time should never be reached, if it be infinite in one direction. That time could not “contain” all the space that it would need to contain, should space be infinite, might be thusly demonstrated: recall the ruler with its limits and the lack of possibility of there being a limitlessness within its limits; so with space in time, we could not have enough time to fill all of space with itself, should space be infinite but time finite.

Time, Infinitude, and Eternality

Furthermore, time, in short, is a term we use to indicate the measurement of moments: one moment follows the previous and the present moment falls into the next. The succession of moments is a series that we call “time,” for which there are many words by which we measure it, like “second,” “minute,” “hour,” “day,” “year,” etc. Now, is it possible for these moments to stretch backward into the past infinitely, and so express an eternal state of time in that direction?

Some say that the issue with time extending ever on back into the past is such that we could (1) never count all those moments and (2) never arrive at the moment at which we presently are. The reason the first holds is because we would never be able to count backward that much or far or fast enough to ever actually reach the end of eternity past. The reason the second point on us arriving here and now appears to hold is because a true infinitude has no end; and if today or now is the endpoint from which we view the infinite trajectory of time, then that is no infinite trajectory.

Indeed, in dealing with infinity, infinitude(s), and the infinite, some say, we cannot place a point in it at which we might stop it for a couple of reasons. First, to stop an infinitude is to do so arbitrarily and one point is as much as any point, meaning any point in an infinitude is every point and every point is any point. Thus, you cannot actually stop an infinitude or pinpoint a point in the span of an infinitude. Second, to pinpoint a point of reference in an infinitude is to destroy the infinitude, and to destroy an infinitude reveals that it never really was one to begin with.

However, I conceive of the nature of infinitude and finitude in this way, even as explained above: there can be a finitude within an infinitude, as a segment of time in the scope of eternity or a segment of length in the scope of the number line. There cannot, however, be an infinitude within a finitude, else the finitude would cease to be such. Thus, the argument just above about there being no possible way for time to be infinite because we could never pinpoint or pin down a moment in time seems to misunderstand the nature of both infinity and eternality.

Time and Space

Do Space and Time Interrelate?

The question at hand, at this point in the discussion, is whether space is actually in time. But before we get to that question, we must first determine whether space and time touch at all in the first place. For if space and time are two entities, one in the other, then they would, of course, interrelate and interact with one another. If, however, they are of such a state or substance as to be utterly distinct, so that never the twain shall meet, then it is absurd nonsense to speak of the two interrelating or interacting.

Let us suppose that space and time do not touch, do not interact, do not interrelate. What would we have then? We would have time, and we would have space, each separate and distinct. Time would be the passing of moments, but with nothing to pass it, and space would be stationary objects with no time to measure out the passage of anything, because nothing would be moving. As soon as objects begin moving, there is time. While time is the measurement of the passing of moments, it is also the measurement of motion of objects in those moments, much like an old filmstrip is made up of frames, each still next to the other, motionless.

Now, let us suppose that time and space do, in fact, interact, especially since that is how the world and universe in which we live seems to operate. Is it that time is in space or space is in time or that both are concurrent with one another, on some space-time continuum? Does one cause the other or do the two merely concurrently correlate, each constantly conjoining with the other?

Is Time in Space or is Space in Time?

Let us suppose that time is in space, meaning that within the confines of space is time. As far as space extends, so does time. But time is no entity with a body of extension as space is; and in many ways it is a construct of human observation of the movement of moments. In fact, time is space in motion.

Now, if time is space in motion, then which is in which?

Let us think of time as a length of a tape measure, and space can be whatever material object we might like to think of that has spatial extension: you or me, for instance. There we are, standing on the measuring tape. Ahead of us are marked out the demarcations of static lengths: one foot, two feet, three feet, four feet, and so on. As we walk along this tape measure, we find it comes to an end. Let us say, at 85 feet. Say that that 85-foot marker is our dying day.

Now, as we were on the line of measurement, the tape measure, were we “in” it in any sort of way? To be sure, we can be in a room, a physical and concrete space; or we can be in a mood, a mental and rather abstract space; or we can be in a profession, another rather abstract, though not so mental, space. But can we be in time? To be sure, we can: we can be in time inasmuch as we are in anything else. And if time is like the tape measure on which we were walking along, then we were in the tape measure, if not physically, though surely concretely.

Though we do not see, smell, taste time, we surely touch it and feel it. Of course, it wears on us and drags us down as well as along, pushing us ever onward, even if not forward, along the conveyor belt of life, as we trod along, trudging forth, one foot in front of the other.

Thus, if we are of matter and matter is of space and if we are in time, then surely matter and space are in time as well, even if we do not exactly know how.

That is to say, then, if time is finite, and space is in time, and no finitude can hold and infinitude, then space is too finite.

What about God, though?

So, who or what caused God? Such a question, which even very young children ask, presumes not only that God has a beginning but that all things have a beginning. To be sure, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, then has God, like the universe, ever begun to exist? And if the universe began to exist at some point, then how can it be said that the universe is eternal or coeternal with God? Not only that, if God is eternal and has never had a beginning and the universe is not eternal and does have a beginning, then how does God relate to the universe, which began at some point, though God is presumably ever without end?

Of course, as we have seen above, there is a singular origin of the universe; and this singular origins bears within itself the seeds of diversity or multiplicity, much like a piece of fruit bears many seeds within its body. Now, as the universe has as beginning in time, then it is finite in time. And as the universe is in time, it cannot extend beyond time, but is, too, finite in time and as time is. The universe, then, might have caused itself to come to be, but then that begs the question of what came before the time-bound and limited, finite universe? We cannot say more time or more space!

It seems to stand that there must be some other principle or person at work in the universe, beyond both time and space, though able to step into each like a garment as well as to cast either off in the same manner. This being must be neither material nor impersonal, for a couple of reasons: (1) as the lesser does not give rise to the greater but the greater to its own kind as well as to the lesser, then the cause of the universe must be greater than time, space, and the universe; and (2) as like gives rise to like, so also the universe only begets like unto itself, but whence do we humans (both material and immaterial, both impersonal and personal) come, if not from the cause beyond this universe?

Thus, it seems to stand that God does, in fact, exist and he is infinite, such that he has never been bound by time per force, as we are, nor is he locked up in matter, as we are. But he is free and free to do as he wills with all his universe that he has created and caused to come to be.