Modern science says that a cause causes another cause. i.e. the big bang was a cause which eventually caused everything we see today. So what caused the big bang? Apparently multi-verses colliding? What caused the multi-verses? Maybe hyper-verses colliding? What caused the hyper-verses? Maybe ultra-verses colliding? What caused the ultra-verses?...

As you can see, it seems illogical (to me at-least) to think that "what caused the cause" would go back for eternity.

Wouldn't you eventually get to a point where an uncaused consciousness had to "choose" to cause the first cause?


3 Answers 3


It sounds like you're referring to the "Law of Cause and Effect," which tells us that every material effect has a prior cause. I counter that your question is an example of special pleading, suggesting that everything requires a cause, except for this super special uncaused cause which started everything.

Either every "cause requires a cause" or "not every cause requires a cause." Either all causes were caused by a prior event, meaning the uni-multi-ultraverse model you propose is perpetual, or not every cause requires a prior cause which means there is no need for a special snowflake "initial cause" needing to "choose" to start things off.

Anyway, modern science (and the Law of Cause and Effect) only offer models for how reality operates in our present universe. As such, it does not (necessarily) apply before our universe existed, and may not have even applied during the initial moments after the big bang.

Our scientific models of the universe do not speak to how things worked before the big bang, and currently the only thing we know about things before planck time are that things certainly did NOT operate according to the same rules (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html).


Modern science does NOT say that everything has a cause. Indeed, it appears to say the opposite.

Quantum theory implies that events can occur for no reason what so ever. At least from a purely scientific point of view, causality breaks down at the level of the "very small".

So from a scientific point of view, not every event has a cause. Similarily, from a logical point of view, not every truth has a reason for being true.


You may or you may not reach to the eventual point. We just don't know yet. We are severely limited in our abilities to figure this out.

Science says if you observe something, try to find what caused it and what caused that cause and so on. If at the first cause itself you start to believe that there is no cause of it then you have basically blocked yourself at that point for further exploration and experimentation. Look at the history and you will find people whole believed that they know the "starting point" (i.e some form of the word God) were the one who were against the scientific approach.

Science never says that there is or there is no "eventual starting point". It only says "We don't know, so lets just keep exploring, keep theorizing and keep proving"

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .