Right from the first centuary, early christian patriarchs used the argument from cause and effect as an apology for the existence of God as against the materialistic approach. A materialist as we understand assumes that the Universe consists of matter in motion and nothing else. The Universe of a materialist consists only of particles and their motion. We need to be careful in defining the universe before any argument on th subject matter. That is why I have started off with the materialistic definition of the Universe.

In mathematics universe is always defined at the start of the problem. Thus we define the universe of integral numbers, Positive numbers, negative numbers, all male, all children under 12, all students in grade 10 etc can defined as universe. The requirement of desriptive definition of the universe is that it must be able to describle every element in the universe. It can not be a vague definition. Vague definitions finally leads to contradictions and vague results. If we take any element from the Universe we must be able to check it against our definition to see whether it is within the universe or not. Very often people who argue on the first cause arguement define universe vaguely only to bent back on this vagueness for their argument. One defintion that was offered to me was "all that there is". The definition "all that there is" is not definitive. It does not give us any idea of the members of this universe. You will have to make it clear whether this "all that there is" now includes Consciouness, God, a first cause etc.

Is there a cause- effect relation within this universe of ours?

You can very well say that every event in the universe is unrelated. There is no cause - effect relation at all. Then this universe cannot be studied by any scientific law. The assumption that the physical universe in which we live can be explained i.e. there exists a cause effect relation- is the basic assumption of science. If it is true that there is no cause-effect within our universe our logic itself has no meaning in the dimensions of reasoning. We have simply committed suicide. What connection our first statement has with the second? One logical statement does not follow from the other! Since we are certain that we can reason out logically,- and that we believe that they are valid deductions - we have already assumed a cause - effect relation within our universe of ideas. Are our ideas within the universe of matter? Certainly not. So we need to extend and redefine our universe to include not only physical universe but also mental universe. Then the universe of matter must actually follow the same logic as my ideas. Does it? For the present let us assume that. (We will later on see that the logic is actually dependent on the Universe for its validity. There is nothing apriori about the logic. The logic system we employ in a complex number universe is not valid in the real number system universe. The logic depends on the Universe we define.) The sequence in the logic takes place in the universe in time. Then we can trace back a cause for every effect and go back in a chain of reasoning to a first cause till the beginning of time i.e. at the singularity point when time begins.

If the first cause is within our definition of Universe, we have come to the end of the chain and the cause is to be found within the singularity. We will talk about singularity and what it means later. If the first cause is not within this universe, it should exist outside of it. But this new cause is not explicable in terms of the logic of our universe because it is outside of our universe. This will lead us to the assumption that your universe is simply a subset of a universe of wider dimension outside of our definition.

This is not difficult to understand. As an example take the case of the universe U = {All natural numbers } ; If we start from any given number the process of subtraction will lead us back to 1 and we are stuck at 1. What happens when we subtract 1 from 1. Hey that does not belong to this universe. But it does not mean it does not exist outside of this universe. So we need to extend our universe. It is easy to extend this reasoning to our physical universe. If we cannot find a final cause within the physical universe we need to look for it outside of it. This is the linear argument where we have assumed that cause effect moves in time and it does from the point of singularity (and incidentally not backwards beyond t=0.

What is a singularity?

Singularities are points which cannot be explained by normal logic. What happens at the singularity is unknown. It is a point of ignorance. An example of simple mathematical singularity is the point when x = 1 in 1/(x-1) It simply means that at that point the value of x is indefinite. It does not in anyway mean that there are no laws beyond the singularity in time or at that point. Singularities can be removed by defining a value at that point. f(x) = 1/(x-1) becomes a function when we give a value for it at x=1. In fact the singularities in elementary particle theories have been removed by normalization process in Physics so that we could still handle the Physics with laws that we are familiar with. 1/(x-1) becomes a function and can be algebraically treated only if we give a value for the function at x=0.

The Big Bang Theory and the First Cause

We know that the beginning of Universe is a singularity point in time. The Big Bang theory of universe assumes that at some point in time the space was simply a point. All the masses and whatever physical reality encompasses were concentrated in one singular point. Since this point has no spacial dimension, there is no motion. Hence this point is a singularity point of which we have very little understanding. There was no time before that and there is time after that. So time begins at that point so does space when the big bang occurred. That is probably the biggest argument for the existence of a cause outside of this universe. Since there is no negative time, time ceases to exist if we move backward at the point of singularity. The cause effect should cease at this point when t=0.

Therefore the First Cause existed at this point in time (t=0) when time was not and space was not, or it lies outside of this. What lies beyond this does not depend on time - beyond time. (same argument we used to go back with subtraction process in natural numbers mentioned earlier). In fact Time and Space simply started at that point. The case is clearly stated in Dialectical Materialism thus: time is a concept because of motion of matter. (Actually Physics considers time exactly according to this definition. Remember the twin paradox). Space is the concept based on the extension of matter. Space and time are not absolutes and are not realities but are mathematical or logical abstractions deduced from the existence of matter and its motion. For mathematical purpose we may consider space and time as mathematical abstractions. (The simple question that is not usually asked is, what lies outside of our physical universe? While we are sure that our physical universe is finite in volume and space curves on to itself, what is outside of this space? Simply it is beyond this dimension. What happens inside the black hole?)

At this singularity when all matter was just a point all space was just a point and there was no time. Space and time came into existence at the point of singularity.

The Normalisation Factor is God

Either you define a cause outside of it or you refuse to think about it. You can say it is beyond my logic and my science. That is exactly it. The first cause is beyond our logic and science. If we are to understand this universe at the point of singularity onward, we need to make some normalization. This is what religion does. Now we can handle this universe with definite physical laws that are inherently and potentially started from the First Cause. Singularity is therefore the greatest argument for the existence of God beyond this physical universe.

Then again logic is not absolute as many would like us to think and is not valid in all conditions. Logic in one set of dimensions may be an absurdity in another. e.g. 1+1 =2 But 1N force + 1 N force is not necessarily = 2N force because forces are vectors and nor scalars Our logic is derived from experience. This is one reason why we assumed earlier that our logical sequence of ideas will correspond to cause effect of the material world in time and space. As our experience in various dimensions change the nature of logic also changes. Trying to apply logic that is valid in certain circumstance to all circumstances will end up in false conclusions. Our concept of this universe is not based on proofs or reasoning but on experience. Logic is derived from observations and experience. Even in science we do not postulate a law based on one experience. We need a large number of experimental values and not one recurrent phenomena that disproves may exist to make a law. Until then it is still an assumption - a theory at best. Proof of the pudding is not in reasoning about it - but in eating it. Taste it and see. Trying to find the first cause by reasoning alone is like the people who tried to establish how many teeth a horse has by reasoning alone sitting around a table.

The Assumption of the existence of a first cause brings up other properties as well. If there is a law built into the system which is immutable. This gives the first cause certain properties that leads us to a personal immutable God. This is not a form of energy or power. This must have a purpose which gives direction and order. This first cause is a person who is beyond time and space, beyond the dimensions of this physical universe but capable creating and idrecting this cosmos. We have no alternate position possible.

There are no proofs for existence of God, simply because validity of the logic ends at the singularity. There are possible reasonings -apologies. But there are evidences from experience. The logic based on science leads us thus far to the necessity of a God and his basic properties. Trying to establish the proof for existence of God is exactly like trying establish the existence of physical universe. Can we prove it? The Above argument is based on time. remember time does not exist beyond the singularity. In fact a rigorous solution of the equation shows clearly symmetry properties in space of our universe but total unsymmetry in terms oftime at the point of singularity. Time does not exist. Because time was created at that instant. The first cause is just outside this time, but continues in this time. God is immanent in the universe but is not of this universe. God is beyond time. Your logic cease to have any validity at the point of singularity and beyond it.

Brahman and Prakriti

There are two logical solutions to it.

One the cause is within the Universe of my definition. This is the Advaitic (One Reality)approach. The cause and effect are within the Brahman which includes consciousness and the world it is aware of. The universe is only in the mind of Brahman. The universe is the dream of God. God himself become the world.

The other approach is that the cause Brahman is outside of this physical universe. This is the Dvaitic (Dual Reality) approach. This is the Christian understanding. The physical universe - seen and unseen are created by God. This world is not God nor part of him. Prakriti exists outside of Brahman. The life or consciousness is given to beings in this created world and are the Jeevatmas - the conscious ones in the universe. Jeevatma is distinct from Paramatma, because Paramatma brought them into being. Since there cannot be anything outside of God - there is no meaning for outside that can exist apart from the reality - Prakriti is an extension of God, though in itself it is not God.

The third approach is that only the Physical Universe exists and nothing beyond. Then we are left with a reason for cause effect relationship. But the very fact that we reason and we have a science and science is able to change our lives validates the existence of cause -effect. We have seen that a mechanistic physical universe without a reason or logic is self destructive. Our arguments are then simply using an absurdity(reasoning) to prove something valid. Then again logic is not absolute as many would like us to think and is not valid in all conditions. Logic in one set of dimensions may be an absurdity in another. Our logic is derived from experience. As our experience in various dimensions change the nature of logic also changes. Trying to apply logic that is valid in certain circumstance to all circumstances will end up in false conclusions.

Proof of the pudding is not in reasoning - but in eating it. However much you try you can never explain the pudding to one who never tasted it.

Come. Taste the goodness of God and see