One of the favorite arguments of atheists and unbelievers is the famous question: "If God created everything, then who created God?" or "How can it be that everything has its own reason for appearing, but God does not?"
This formulation of the question, at first glance, looks very logical. From everyday experience we know that things have their reasons, and it is also possible to understand the idea of the creation of the world by God, however, it inevitably entails this seeming contradiction.
To solve this riddle, one should turn to the deductive method of formal logic, namely, the study of premises.
So, we should examine the premise - infinity, which underlies the "infinite chain of causes" if we reject the causeless root cause: God the Creator.
If each cause is the result of a cause that precedes it, and everything has something else as its cause, then we get an "endless movement into the past," which is full of endless causes.
And it is precisely this endless regression, endless movement into the past that is a logical mistake.
The assertion that there are an infinite number of causes in the past means that we, in the present moment, right now, as you read these lines, have come to the end of an “infinite series of causes”, which in itself is contradictory and absurd, because an endless series of reasons cannot have an end, however, in the present moment, in which there is still no future, it ends and we are at its very end.
Infinite movement into the past means that we, step by step, move into the past for an infinite number of reasons, and this number of reasons, being infinite, always has more reasons than we have already passed, moving into the past. The end cannot be reached because the number of reasons is infinite.
Promotional video:
If we moved in this way into the infinite past, then in this series of causes there would necessarily be a cause that cannot be reached - so far in the infinite past it is! If there were no such cause in the past, the series of causes of the past would be finite, not infinite. And here the most interesting thing: having found such a reason, which is infinitely distant in the past from the present moment, moving from the past to the present, it would be impossible to be in the present moment, for the same reason that we fundamentally cannot get to it from the present moment, namely, an infinite number of reasons separating these two points.
The idea of an infinite past implies that being in the present moment, we have accomplished something that by the very definitions of an infinite past is simply impossible to accomplish. We have counted the incalculable.
Thus, the idea of an endless past is logically inconsistent and is based on false premises that cannot withstand careful analysis. Therefore, not all things have a cause, which means that there must be a cause that has no cause, or an uncaused root cause.
It is easy to understand that since the root cause did not appear as a result of something else, then it appeared and gave way to the next reason - voluntarily, solely based on its inner content (will, desire, possibility, what makes this reason personal or simply a person) …
The eternity of the first cause is also derived from this. For the root cause, only two states can be thought of: it began to exist for no reason, and it never existed before, or it existed forever. It goes without saying that the root cause could not “begin to exist for no reason, not existing before,” simply because nothing can just turn into something, zero is always zero. Since nothing can come from nothing, then the only logically correct conclusion will be the eternity of the existence of the first cause.
And when someone speaks about the primary cause, generating or creating, which is the cause of everything else, while being uncaused (uncreated and uncreated), existing solely due to the inner content, about the personal, eternal primary cause … as a rule, this is understood as God the Creator.
