# How could we get over a seeming contradiction in first cause causality without jumping to anything impossible?

This post is showing a contradiction in the existence of a first cause, meaning maybe it's not possible for it to exist. You might not get this immediately so look at the second paragraph and read again, for now just read this (can you get this?): a first cause is eternal, meaning it is timeless, never ending. You can't apply seconds to it if it is eternal, all of its processes are eternal, its process of causation is also eternal, thus since its causation process doesn't end, it will continue to cause forever, being eternal in the timeless sense, without a beginning and end. Now, I say this: if a first cause's causation doesn't end, it will continue to cause over and over the exact same thing as its causation of that thing doesn't end. However, this means that the law of identity would be violated, because how can there be two of the same thing? If it continues to cause that thing then that would mean that there are two things that are the same, but everything is equal to itself. This would go against the law of identity, so how do we overcome this contradiction? I thought of something: non-beings lack properties, and this is important because of the fact that we can say that our abstract understanding is wrong. But then I thought of this: maybe we can't define the being abstractly since it's transcendent, but it seems I need help from someone else on this.

Mind you, an inherent aspect of a first cause is its ability to cause, and its actual act of causing is also never ending. "Inherent" meaning a permanent aspect of it, because we know causation is an aspect of the first cause that is inherent to it. If it wasn't permanent, it would mean that it would have an aspect that was added to it, which is impossible because it is eternal and timeless and can't change. So, its causation (being an inherent aspect of it) is eternal, and this process is a non-timely process which takes place in causing it is never ending.

This seems to expose a contradiction in logic and reasoning itself, as there has to be a first cause. For example, let's say that something came into existence without being given rise to: what gave rise to it is the very thing that allows it to happen, so no causality is a contradiction. Yet, causality also leads to a contradiction. A first cause has to exist if everything that begins to exist has a cause, as an infinite regress of causes leads to infinite past. An infinite past before this moment is impossible as the past is something that ends, however, infinity in this sense can't end. If time is infinite, by definition it can't end. So there needs to be a first cause if everything has a cause, as there can't be an infinite amount of caused things in the past. Time has to begin, and in that case time needs a cause.

• The universe could be anything. It could certainly be any mathematical structure you can dream up. The Peano natural numbers begin with 0, with every Peano natural number having a predecessor except for 0. Why couldn't the universe be just like that? Many sequences in mathematics have "base cases" for their initial values, with the rest generated by inductive steps, just like the universe could have a base case for its initial value with the rest generated by causal steps. Sep 20, 2023 at 17:06
• @causative pls clarify ok thanks Sep 20, 2023 at 17:15
• isn't this an argument against causation with svabhava "its actual act of causing is also never ending". the argument may work, idk
– user67675
Sep 20, 2023 at 17:58
• Maybe you shouldn't assume that everything has a cause. Sep 20, 2023 at 18:24
• There's no inherent contradiction in an infinite regress of causes. It's possible, that the causes occur instantly, and so even in a finite amount of time you could have infinitely many of them. Or, Sep 20, 2023 at 18:50

It also seems to expose a contradiction in logic and reasoning itself, as there has to be a first cause,

First, there cannot be a contradiction is logic itself, for it would mean that logic is illogical, and if it was so, then who would be logical to be able to prove that?

There can be a contradiction in what people say, including in arguments and reasonings, but that is not logic itself.

for example, lets say that something came into existence without being given rise to, what gave rise to it is the very thing that allows it to happen, so no causality is a contradiction,