A standard argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The first premise of this argument is that if something begins to exist then it must have a cause. My question is this. Would it also be true that if something had a cause to its existence then it must have a beginning?
A standard argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The first premise... is that if something begins to exist then it must have a cause.... Would it also be true that if something had a cause to its existence then it must have a beginning?
The revised statement would not be true, necessarily; it is the converse of the original, not the contrapositive.
The original premise is: If A begins to exist, then A has a cause. The restatement is the converse: If A has a cause, then A begins to exist. Although apparently true in this example, the revised statement does not necessarily follow from the original; here, the converse must be independently proven.
See Converse (logic), Wikipedia. Several other websites contrast the contrapositive, inverse, and converse of a statement.
'Without beginning' means 'no cause'. Every cause itself becomes an effect and an effect is the cause in a changed form. Therefore all effects are liable to change and that which changes is perishable. The Supreme Self being an uncaused cause for all that has been created, has no beginning.
So the answer to your question is not "Yes" in all cases.
Please read about the relation between cause and effect.
You might have heard this in different religions...."God is timeless, having no beginning and no end"
the thought is correct. If we think about materiial entity this is evident but even thespiritual entity started to begin in a time that we call aevum (latin)
This is the thought of Plato, Aristotle, and new-Platonist like Plotino (that are not religious), then accepted by St. Augustin, St. Thomas Aquinas too