top of page
Search

The Principle of Causality: A Detailed Christian Apologetic Perspective

The principle of causality is a fundamental concept that underlies both theological and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. It serves as the bedrock for many of the classical arguments for God's existence, especially within the framework of the cosmological argument. Christian apologetics often hinges on this principle to demonstrate the necessity of a First Cause, which is identified as God. The principle is not just a tool of logical reasoning but also a profound insight into the nature of reality itself, as understood from a biblical perspective. In this article, we will explore the principle of causality, its different formulations, its defense, and its application in the context of Christian apologetics, particularly concerning arguments for the existence of God.



The Principle of Causality: Different Formulations


The principle of causality can be stated in various ways, depending on the context and the precision required for the argument at hand. These formulations, though expressed differently, are fundamentally interconnected and express the same core truth: that every effect must have a cause. The most basic formulation is the simple statement, "Every effect has a cause." This statement is often seen as self-evident, as it appears intuitively true that something cannot come into existence without something else bringing it into existence.


Another formulation is: "Every contingent being is caused by another." This version of the principle introduces the idea of contingency, which implies that there are beings whose existence is not necessary but rather conditional. A contingent being, by definition, could either exist or not exist, and its existence is therefore dependent on something outside itself. This formulation is crucial when discussing the existence of the universe, as it establishes that if the universe is contingent, it must have a cause outside of itself.


Similarly, the principle can be stated as, "Every limited being is caused by another." This emphasizes the limitation of finite beings, which, by their very nature, cannot account for their own existence. Their finitude points to a cause that is beyond them. This leads naturally to the conclusion that an infinite or unlimited being, namely God, must exist as the ultimate cause of all finite, limited beings.


Lastly, the principle is sometimes stated as, "Nonbeing cannot cause being." This is another way of expressing the idea that something cannot come from nothing. If there were ever a state of absolute nothingness, there would still be nothing, because nothingness has no potentiality or power to bring anything into existence.


Each of these formulations, while slightly different, ultimately expresses the same truth: things do not simply come into existence on their own, and every effect, or every being that is contingent, finite, or limited, must have a cause.



Defense of the Principle of Causality


An Undeniable Truth


The principle of causality, especially in its simplest form, "Every effect has a cause," is undeniable. This is because the very definition of an "effect" implies something that is caused. By definition, an effect is the result of a cause, and a cause is that which produces an effect. This makes the principle analytically self-evident, much like saying, "A triangle has three sides." To deny that every effect has a cause is to engage in a self-contradiction, as it would involve denying the very meaning of the terms involved.


This self-evident nature of the principle of causality is important for the theist because it lays the foundation for arguments that aim to demonstrate the existence of God. However, merely stating that every effect has a cause is not always sufficient for the purposes of theistic arguments. The theist must also demonstrate that contingent, finite, or temporal beings—such as the universe itself—are effects that require a cause. This involves showing that these beings did not exist eternally and must, therefore, have been brought into existence by something else.


The Nature of Being and Nonbeing


One of the most profound ways to defend the principle of causality is through a discussion of the nature of being and nonbeing. The statement "Nonbeing cannot cause being" is a powerful affirmation of the principle. Nonbeing, by definition, is nothing; it has no existence, no power, no potentiality. Therefore, it cannot bring anything into existence. Only something that exists can cause something else to exist.


This defense can be summed up in the well-known maxim: "From nothing, nothing comes." It is a universal truth that nothingness has no causal power. The very concept of causality implies the existence of something that has the power to effect another. Thus, the principle that nonbeing cannot produce being is both intuitively obvious and logically necessary. To deny this principle would be to assert that nothingness can somehow produce something, which is a logical absurdity.


The Nature of Contingency


The concept of contingency is central to the defense of the principle of causality. A contingent being is one that exists but could, under different circumstances, not exist. Its existence is not necessary, and therefore it must have a cause. Contingent beings, by their very nature, do not account for their own existence. There is nothing inherent in a contingent being that explains why it exists rather than does not exist. Therefore, it must have been brought into existence by something else.


The principle of contingency leads naturally to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being, one that exists by its very nature and does not depend on anything else for its existence. This Necessary Being is what Christians understand to be God. God, as a Necessary Being, exists eternally and is the ultimate cause of all contingent beings.



The Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Causality


The cosmological argument is one of the most well-known arguments for the existence of God, and it is rooted in the principle of causality. The argument begins with the observation that something exists—namely, the universe—and then seeks to demonstrate that the universe must have a cause. This cause is identified as God.


Everything That Comes to Be Has a Cause


One version of the cosmological argument is based on the principle that "Everything that comes to be is caused by another." The argument proceeds as follows:

  1. Everything that comes to be is caused by another.

  2. The universe came to be.

  3. Therefore, the universe was caused by another.


This syllogism demonstrates that the universe must have a cause outside of itself, because it came into existence at a certain point in time. The burden of proof, of course, lies in demonstrating that the universe did, in fact, come into existence. This is where scientific evidence, such as the Big Bang theory, and philosophical reasoning come into play.

The Big Bang theory, for example, provides strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it is not eternal, and it must have a cause. This cause, theists argue, is God. The universe cannot cause itself, and nothingness cannot produce something. Therefore, the existence of the universe points to the existence of a First Cause, which is uncaused and necessary—namely, God.


Every Contingent Being Is Caused by Another


Another version of the cosmological argument focuses on the contingency of the universe. The argument can be stated as follows:


  1. Every contingent being is caused by another.

  2. The universe is contingent in its being.

  3. Therefore, the universe is caused by another.


This argument relies on the idea that the universe is not a Necessary Being but rather a contingent one. It could either exist or not exist, and it depends on something else for its existence. Since the universe is contingent, it must have a cause outside of itself. This cause, again, is identified as God.



The Principle of Analogy and the Nature of the Cause


While the cosmological argument can demonstrate the existence of a First Cause or Necessary Being, it does not necessarily tell us much about the nature of this cause. To argue that the cause of the universe is intelligent, moral, or personal, the principle of analogy is often used. The principle of analogy states that effects resemble their causes. In other words, the nature of the effect can give us clues about the nature of the cause.


For example, the universe manifests intelligent design and order in its being. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the cause of the universe is an intelligent Designer. Similarly, the moral dimension of human experience suggests that the cause of human beings is a moral being. Thus, through the principle of analogy, theists argue that the First Cause of the universe is not only a Necessary Being but also an intelligent and moral being—namely, God.



Objections to the Principle of Causality


While the principle of causality is widely accepted and forms the basis for many arguments for the existence of God, there are objections to it, particularly from atheists and skeptics. Some of these objections are addressed below.


There Is No Need for a Cause


Some atheists argue that there is no need for a cause and that something can come into existence from nothing. This view is contrary to both reason and experience. It goes against the fundamental understanding of reality as we live it and against the entire scientific enterprise, which is based on the search for causal explanations. To argue that things can simply pop into existence from nothing is to deny one of the most basic principles of reality.


Those who hold this view must also face the fact that something that does not even exist has no power to do anything. Nonbeing, as previously discussed, cannot cause being. If there were ever absolutely nothing, then there would still be nothing, because nothingness has no causal power.


If Everything Is Caused, So Is God


Another common objection is that if everything requires a cause, then God must also require a cause. This objection is based on a misunderstanding of the principle of causality. The principle does not state that everything requires a cause, but rather that everything that comes to be requires a cause. God, as a Necessary Being, did not come to be; he exists eternally and necessarily. Therefore, he does not require a cause.


The principle of causality applies only to contingent beings—those that have a beginning and are not necessary in their existence. God, as the Necessary Being, is the ultimate cause of all contingent beings but is himself uncaused.


The Principle of Causality Does Not Apply to Reality


Some critics argue that the principle of causality belongs only in the realm of logic and does not apply to reality. This objection is self-defeating. The very act of thinking about reality implies that the laws of thought apply to reality. To deny that the principle of causality applies to reality is to deny the very possibility of knowledge, for all knowledge is based on causal connections between the mind and the external world.


The principle of causality is not just a logical principle; it is a principle about reality itself. When we say that "Nonbeing cannot produce being," we are making a statement about what is real and what is not real. To deny the principle of causality is to deny the very possibility of understanding reality.



The Necessity of a Continuing Cause


Some critics argue that even if there was a cause for the beginning of the universe, there is no need for a cause to sustain the universe now. This objection misunderstands the nature of causality. The universe is a contingent being, and as such, it requires a cause not only for its coming into existence but also for its continued existence.


A contingent being cannot sustain its own existence, because it does not have the power of being within itself. It is always dependent on something outside of itself to hold it in existence. Therefore, the universe, as a contingent being, must have a continuing cause that sustains it at every moment of its existence. This cause, Christians argue, is God, who is not only the Creator but also the Sustainer of the universe.


The distinction between becoming and being is crucial here. A being that comes into existence (becomes) requires a cause for its coming into existence. But a being that continues to exist (is) also requires a cause for its ongoing existence. The universe did not just come into existence and then continue on its own; it requires a continuing cause to sustain it.


This concept is well illustrated by Aquinas’ distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is). Contingent beings have essence but require a cause for their existence. Only God, as Pure Existence (Esse), requires no cause, for he is the ground of all existence. All other beings derive their existence from him.



Quantum Physics and the Principle of Causality


One of the most frequently cited objections to the principle of causality in recent times comes from quantum physics. Some physicists, interpreting Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty, argue that subatomic events are uncaused. However, this conclusion does not follow from the data. Heisenberg's principle is not a principle of uncausality but a principle of unpredictability. It states that the position and speed of a particle cannot be known simultaneously with complete certainty. This unpredictability does not imply that the events themselves are uncaused.


Furthermore, the subatomic realm is not directly observable without interference. Therefore, scientists cannot make definitive claims about what is happening at that level. Even though the behavior of particles appears random, this does not mean they are uncaused. The apparent randomness could be due to our limited ability to observe the underlying causes.


Einstein himself rejected the idea that quantum events are uncaused, famously stating, "God does not play dice with the universe." This statement reflects the conviction that even at the subatomic level, the principle of causality holds. The unpredictability observed in quantum mechanics does not negate the reality of causality but merely reflects the limitations of human knowledge.



Conclusion


The principle of causality remains a foundational truth in both philosophy and Christian apologetics. It is self-evident in its most basic form—"Every effect has a cause"—and can be defended through careful reasoning about the nature of being and nonbeing, contingency, and the limits of finite existence. The principle is essential for demonstrating the existence of God through the cosmological argument, as it shows that the universe, as a contingent being, must have a cause outside of itself.


Objections to the principle, whether from atheists or from the realm of quantum physics, do not undermine its validity. Rather, they often stem from misunderstandings of the principle or from misinterpretations of scientific data. The principle of causality is not just a logical principle but a truth about reality itself. It undergirds all rational thought and scientific inquiry, and without it, knowledge of the external world would be impossible.


For the Christian apologist, the principle of causality provides a powerful tool for demonstrating the necessity of a First Cause—God—who not only created the universe but also sustains it at every moment. God, as the Necessary Being, is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. His existence is the foundation of all reality, and the principle of causality points directly to him as the Creator and Sustainer of all that is.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


5 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page