The content of this article, as most of the other ones, was taken in general from the Aristotelian Philosophy; and it deals primarily with one of the most important philosophical concepts that is ‘Causality‘, the relationship between Cause and Effect. This article intends to demonstrate that through the application of causality one can arrive at the philosophical concept of a metaphysical Creator, the “Uncaused First Cause” of the ‘visible and invisible’ world.
Causality is one of the most powerful tools of physical sciences, and yet, it is strange to say that, similarly to the concept of energy, it is rather difficult to define. At first glance, however, we all know or some people feel at least intuitively that every event (that is change) in the physical reality is initiated by something other than the change itself. This linking of repetitively observed physical facts, together with the result in quantitative and/or qualitative changes, gives rise to the familiar concept in one’s mind, which we call causality.
Cause is nothing other than an answer to the question: “Why things occur”; i.e. Cause could be either a physical or transcendental agent for giving us the understanding of the essence of change. There are philosophers, and oddly enough, even scientists, who refuse to openly acknowledge the existence of causality in its unconditional definition, others outright modify it only to suit their own specific requirements.
This article intends to provide first and foremost philosophical descriptions for, and clarifying ideas about causality, without whose knowledge and application physical sciences simply could not exist.
Our understanding of the essence of causality would also greatly assist in at least the appreciation of what is involved when this Website sets a target to help the reader with an already existing faith, to reinforce that faith further by a reality-based evidence.
This reasoning process was outlined in the earlier articles, where we emphasised that the enigmatic ‘connection’ between our abstract reasoning about the ‘First Cause’ and the material reality of the ‘Final Cause’ (the Effect), constitutes the very essence of causality.
As mentioned above, the sources for the descriptions were taken primarily from Aristotle’s Philosophy as well as from various philosophical articles.
THE LINK BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT
The following will describes the general rules of connection between cause and its effect, which is thought to apply necessarily to all Laws and Forces that govern all energy, matter and sub-atomic particles during their 13.75 billion years of existence in the physical Universe:-
Cause may be physical that is observable in the reality, and transcendental that is unobservable in the physical reality.
Physical cause acts usually on a physical entity and event, and it can be quantitative and qualitativeact, as its effect or effects can be observed and physically measured.
Transcendental cause is always a qualitative act of a free will, elicited by the human mind through its ‘connection’ with free will of the choice of means; whose effect or effects may or may not be observed and physically measured.
A principle of Philosophy posits: Every cause must end in an effect or effects; otherwise there is no cause to speak of. Therefore every entity and event in the physical reality is an effect, which could become later a cause of further effects, which is called ‘causal chain’.
A causal chain cannot comprise an infinite number of events, (such as causes and effects), because whatever has a beginning must have an end. Otherwise, as the saying goes, ‘one could die of thirst before ever reaching the tap’. The other reason against an endless causal chain is that there can be no ‘infinite regress’ in physical nature, otherwise we would have a ‘perpetual motion’; which would be a contradiction in terms of a contingent physical reality.
First Cause in general may be defined as further causes could follow it in space or time, whose corresponding effect or effects may or may not be observable in the present physical reality. But a ‘truefirst cause‘ (i.e. the very beginning of any change, or the beginning of a causal chain) in its true meaning is that which must, of necessity, be unique, i.e. capable of existing of its own, and there must only be one of it. All other causes that are following this ‘true first cause’ are called only secondary causes.
Cause can never be unpredictable, i.e. a chance event, as every cause in the physical reality is the understanding of a reason for the existence of an entity or event with an evidence-based certitude in the reality. In other words, knowing the cause of anything is having at least a partial explanation of thereason for a newly formed entity or event; (it is also referred to as raison d’etre).
Reason can never be a cause, as reason can only explain the physical reality that may not be self-evident to the mind. Even if physical reality may lack observable causes, it cannot lack reason, therefore nothing can exist without a fully accountable or sufficient reason. The metaphysical concept of reason for the existence of an entity or event may be described in the reality by its physical identity. Therefore the Aristotelian axiom says: ‘There is no entity without identity’.
Choice is the product of free will that elicits a reasoned decision, guided by a motive or purpose. The mental act of choice can never be observed directly, only through its effect; (which unfortunately may be a product of chance).
Specification is the only reliably criterion of certainty, by which one can guarantee a clear distinction between choice and chance. Specification is an unambiguous scientific or technical description of a pattern or model, (paradigm), provided in advance of an entity or event that corresponds uniquely to that prescribed (or assumed properties of any) future entity or event. This mental procedure is a quintessential requirement when considering the difference between the concept of a deliberate ‘choice’against the argument of a ‘chance effect.‘
One cannot emphasise adequately the importance of the concept of ‘specification‘ versus chance effect. This problem arises repeatedly, especially in connection with arguments for or against the problem of the ‘origin’ of life that is basically equivalent to the problem of the ‘origin’ of biological information. (e.g.: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?)
Chance can never be a cause, as it is a circumstance, meaning that the effect it produces has a nature of unpredictability. Cicero, the Roman Senator and Orator, in one of his dialogues, (46 BC) outlined what chance is not: ‘If a countless number of copies of the letters of the alphabet were thrown in to a receptacle and shaken out on to the ground, could chance produce the Annals of Ennius? I doubt whether chance could possibly produce even a single verse’.
PHILOSOPHY OF CAUSATION
Philosophy and rational science conduct their work in general on the assumption that there is order and intelligibility in the physical reality. Both these disciplines ideally look in every entity and event for theircauses, because one can understand and influence physical reality only through the knowledge of theircausal connections.
Einstein said: ‘Scientists live by their faith in causality, and the chain of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational arguments. But it just fails at the ‘beginning’, (the Big Bang). And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise that motivates all scientists.’
The word of cause may have different meaning to different people. Causes may be observable and unobservable, depending on their physical and transcendental nature or the combination of both. A causal explanation in general is accepted by many philosophers and scientists as explaining and verifying the essence of entities and events by saying “yes”. Its intrinsic meaning distinguishes it from an everyday type of explanation by a conditional acceptance of a happening to an entity or event by adding that something is “accepted always”.
This truth in acceptance implies a law-like connection by necessity between two entities or events, which distinguishes causality from an accidental or chance regularity. The understanding of this description of cause leads us into the very nature of material things, an irreducible simplicity, and approaching those absolute regularities, which can be observed in the workings of the Forces and Laws of physical nature.
There are many types of causes. Regarding the existence of an entity (material body) or event (material changes), primarily both answers to the same question of: “why”, of which Aristotle proposes four types according to the explanation to it. These are:-
- Effective and
- Final causes.
Every entity and event in the physical reality is the product (effect) of all four causes. The transcendental reality is the effect of the last three types, for those are non-material causes. Philosophical Cosmology describes cause as anything that contributes in any manner to the producing or the maintaining an observable effect in the physical reality. There are two major classifications of cause:
a) Final cause is the end, (i.e. teleological), towards which a fact or event is aiming. To explain a fact or event by its final cause is to explain it in terms of the end-result it achieves. This is also referred to as the “law of least action” of achieving end-result in the most economical way. We can observe numerous examples for this efficiency in the physical nature around us.
b) Efficient Cause is, (mechanistic), that which initiates the process of change. To explain a change by its efficient cause is to explain it in terms of prior conditions.
Note: The Final Cause seems scientifically simpler, yet both “causes” describe the same state of affairs and yield the same predictions.
Up until now we have discussed the quantitative, causal connections within in-animate beings, having of course their nominal first causes in the physical reality. However, we find often within an act of causation an invisible transition from the physical to the transcendental realm of reality.
A human mind (or other entity) can apply its will to act, whereby contributing or initiating a causal act or a causal chain of events, guided by a certain qualitative motive or purpose. E.g.: When the qualitative nature of a human mind elicits its will to act, it is based usually on some ‘choice’ (of means), for the attainment of something ‘good’ (or even though in some cases, it may appear ‘bad’); or it may be a simple decision between yes and no. This type of causation is not measurable, nor observable; hence we call it a transcendental act. Its effect or effects, however, may be observed immediately or much later in the physical reality.
In our human acts we cause material effects around us, which could also contain some transcendental causation, although in some cases they may be far removed in time from the material effects in the present-day physical reality.
Furthermore, if now we could extrapolate, through reverse reasoning, from a much larger materialeffect of physical reality, such as the existence of the Universe itself, we then would arrive back to the true First Cause, the very origin of such an effect, without whose action essentially nothing could exist in that transcendental causal chain.
There is an important distinction between the extrapolation from the present day to the physicalbeginning of the Universe, (which happened at the Big Bang, 13.75 billion years ago), and themetaphysical origin of the same Universe, which was believed to have been activated ahead of the Big Bang by a First Cause, whose philosophical term is the “Uncaused First Cause”. In other words, this First Cause would explain the ‘reason’ for the existence of the Big Bang itself.
Philosophers and scientists in general accept the simple interpretation of causation (such as those entities and events only that are observable and/or measurable), because it is a fundamental principle and a rock-bottom basis for our physical sciences, and provides for our cosmological understanding of the physical reality. However, owing to the complexity of the concept of a ‘First Cause‘, and especially for its far-reaching implications, it has become a stumbling block for many cosmologists, scientists and even philosophers, for which reason they dismiss the Aristotelian way of interpreting causality all together.
The heart of the problem, (with specific reference to the true ‘First Cause’ of the Universe), may lie in the idea of seemingly endless causal chains of spatial events, coupled with the huge temporal requirements that disconnect the chain-like continuity of the observable, material ‘effects‘ of the present-day reality from their earlier unobservable, transcendental ‘causations‘.
In other words, a common objection to causal chains that could lead us to a true ‘First Cause‘ is this: ‘Every human being who ever existed on Earth from the beginning of time had to have a mother. But since present mankind appears to be the effect of one common causal series, therefore, it must ultimately have shared one biological first-mother’.
The answer to that argument may be a repetition of the correct definition of the First Cause that is: ‘Although every single entity and event in the reality has an observable physical cause or causes outside itself, a causal series, however, is an unobservable transcendental ‘connection‘. The reason being that an observable physical causal series has an insufficient explanation (reason) of the series, (i.e. of itself); otherwise, such a (material) causal series would act like a ‘perpetual motion‘, which is a contradiction in physical as well as in philosophical terms.
There is an other objection that although individual causations may be accepted, but causal series, which could ultimately lead to the concept of a true ‘first cause‘ are not, because series of causations is either inapplicable or such series has no valid causations at all, hence it has no valid existence. Philosophy’s answer is ‘If a causal series is denied existence, then there is nothing left to talk about physical reality, because every causal series in the reality is made up of its constituent physical parts, therefore, logically its parts do not exist either, which means we should not be here.
Besides the above reasoning , the rejection of Aristotelian causality by scientists in particular is understandable since science can only deal with physical, quantitative entities and events that are observable and physically measurable. It is insufficiently equipped to understand the transcendental act of a human will or other transcendental acts and their effects produced in the physical reality.
Human will, motives and purpose have no physical weight; they are qualitative, hence unobservable (transcendental) causes. This same reasoning applies all the more so to a true ‘First Cause‘ that may have begun to act, say, billions of years ago, through a long series of causations, whose final effect or effects could have realised only just in the present-days’ physical reality.
For example, the reader may recall a distant star, (that began its long journey , say, 7 million years ago), and whose light only reached an astronomer’s telescope today as the observable effect of its radiation, however, without being able to observe the first cause of its origin due to the ‘gap‘ in space and time, caused by the cosmic distant past.
This same reasoning was used earlier for our arriving from the present-day ‘effect‘ (that is the Universe), through reverse reasoning, all the way back at its philosophical ‘Uncaused First Cause‘, who is called by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike the Creator of the Universe.
It appears therefore almost logical why so many philosophers and scientists say: ”I believe in only what I can see”. Consequently, they are justified as well to deny the concept of philosophical causality in general, and the implied concept of ‘first cause’ in particular.
By the way, this outlook must have also denied all scientific facts that were not yet known to exist up until today, (such as the sub-atomic particles). Such empirical scientists are coincidentally compelled to adopt blind-chance as the only logical alternative, which reasoning is a paradoxical incompatibilitybetween a chance cause of an event and its predictable effect, such as the actions by the Laws and Forces of physical nature for the past 13.75 billion years; (which they cannot!)
The metaphysical ‘origin’ of the Universe is considered from this same philosophical view of chancebeing incompatible with logical predictability (through causality).
This reminds Einstein’s remark about the important role causality plays in scientific work: ”….but it just fails at the beginning”. The reader please note that the concept of causality generally, and the ‘first cause’ in particular highlights also its intrinsic contradiction with the much hypothesised and the so called theory of ‘infinity’ of energy and matter, and the concepts of space and time, in their spatial extent and eternal existence within a finite Universe. The basis of this contradiction lies of course principally in the scientifically proven contingent nature of every being existing in the physical reality, while material scientist attempt to prove at the same time that the physical Universe is a self-subsistent entity in its infinity.
CHANCE-ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE
As the name universe is a collective term for all energies, in-animate and animate matter in it, the chance-beginning of the Universe equally applies to all its components. If the ‘beginning’ or Big Bang, etc. were unpredictable, i.e. a “chance-event”, and while knowing from the above descriptions that cause cannot be unpredictable, hence one may ask: If chance can never be a cause, then what was the cause of all these observable effects in the physical reality; In other words, what was ultimately the ‘first cause’ of the Universe and life in it?
A brief repetition of the previous statements meant to further clarify a major aspect of ‘first cause’. The beginning of every single material effect, (or a series of chain-effects of events), must be initiated by a similar material or a transcendental cause outside itself (or outside of a series of causal chain) in the physical reality.
In addition to the above distinguishing between a material cause and its material effect or effects, atime factor should also be considered.; That is to say, the elapse of time between such a cause and effect could separate them to such an extent that the physical causal connection between the two could not only be blurred in the passage of time beyond recognition, but it could also be delayed beyond comprehension.
As mentioned above: If the Big Bang, i.e. the beginning the Universe was not an effect of a true ‘First Cause’ outside itself, then the Universe must either be ‘infinite’ (and non-contingent,) or it was caused by ‘blind-chance‘. It was also pointed out earlier that both alternatives are contradictions in terms of the contingent nature of matter. After these illogical alternatives, our attention now will turn briefly to yet an other property of causality that is purpose.
Purpose or Finality is a philosophical principle of logic, demonstrated by causality in its visible and ‘necessary’ succession, whose sensation we can scientifically observe within the workings of the Laws and Forces of physical nature. A ‘Final Cause’ in Aristotle’s Philosophy, is ‘the end-result’, the achievement, as he calls it ‘telos’ that is towards whose attainment a causation is acting.
Modern physical sciences and biology replaced this view of causation with a mechanistic interpretation, where only blind process and chance-variations could occur. Contrary to those modern ideas, a deeper philosophical idea is in existence, which posits that the true meaning of a ‘Final Cause’ is synonymous with ‘efficient cause’.
An efficient cause ensures in essence that nature follows the way towards achieving its ‘end-result’, thetelos, in the most economical way. (see the Law of least Action or Fermat’s ‘Least-time principle’). The‘economy’ of action reveals itself in a mathematical combination of the varied properties, principally those of mass, dissipation of energy through radiation, speed of light, and distance, in the physical Universe.
We can observe, and seem to understand (even if we cannot see behind reason), that birds have wings for the purpose of flying. Biological science may also accept the reason that eyes are for seeing; that is eyes were never meant to hear sound. These self-evident examples intend to demonstrate the validity of the philosophical assumption that there are events in nature, which cannot be explained logically byblind-chance.
As mentioned above, since the eyes were developed in order to see, it is then not unreasonable to conclude that the eyes are for the purpose to see. If therefore there was a ‘purpose’ in development of the eye, it could not have developed at the same time by ‘blind-chance’. This example may apply equally to the development of ear, which meant to hear; etc. This observed sensation of physical nature leads us to another principle of logic that says that agents in nature act (or cause) for a specific purpose(or effect), for which purpose they were made (or intended).
The origin of life on Earth is one of the most intriguing topics that occupied great philosophical and scientific minds in history. This enigma is selected here for special attention with reference to the concept of ‘blind-chance’, not for being a fashionable subject but because:
First, according to the Principle of Proportionality, life has an analogous nature to the Universe (of which it is an essential part), in so far as both were either produced for a’ purpose‘ i.e. planned (quasi-specified), or both produced merely by blind-chance. There cannot exist a finite life in an infinite Universe, or vice versa.
Second, there is a great many detailed information available from various sources about the lowprobabilities of life appearing on Earth by blind-chance, which information is eminently applicable to the present subject. However, most of those technical details were originally the work of the physicist Professor Charles E. Guye, from whose work are the following extracts.
This is his Argument against ‘creation by blind-chance’:-
“If the probability of an event is infinitely slight, it is equivalent to the practical impossibility of its happening within certain time limits”. The Meaning of chance: “Chance is the probability of an event happening, and it is the ratio of the number of cases favourable to the event, to the total number of possibilities, all possible cases being considered as equally may happen”.
Only a dice player knows that it is nearly impossible to get the same number say, ten times in succession. The chance is one in sixty million. But one would have to plays continuously 24 hours, by throwing (63,115,200 throws) once every second, without a moment of interruption for eating or sleeping, for 2 years, to have one only chance of casting the same number 10 times in succession.
A description of ‘symmetry’ by H. Weyl is paraphrased from the “Contemporary Physics” in the following: “A thing is symmetrical if there is an object, (material or transcendental such as mathematical or physical laws), and you can transform through application of independent variables it that after you have finished doing it, it will show a discernible property of the form of invariance”.
Furthermore, he remarks: “When the symmetry of a law is applied by human will to physical effects in nature is not necessarily invariant. But only the governing equation that fixes the correlation within a series of causation of entities and events”.
Notes on Symmetry, by the Authors of “Contemporary Physics”:
“Symmetry can be such as mirror image, left-right or positive-negative electricity, etc. and it may perhaps answer instinctively to “sameness”. Crystals have a high degree of symmetry. Life has apparently one of the highest dis-symmetry. Liquid water has high symmetric since it looks the same everywhere.
The average probability of finding a water molecule is the same across a whole volume. The loss or breaking of symmetry is invisible, just like energy or causation, only its effects are observable. Therefore such processes are not spatial but intrinsic, and “..related to the special changes that particles interacting via the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces carry”.
General description of the argument:– For the sake of simplification, that is for biasing the calculation towards a highest possible probability, (i.e. to appease the adversaries), the Author based his calculations arbitrarily on one molecule only with a dis-symmetrical degree of 0.9, when the number of constituent atoms is equal to 2,000.
The atoms constituting this imaginary protein molecule are considered as being of two species only, as opposed to the regular four atoms of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon; plus miscellaneous other atoms. The atomic weight of these atoms being supposed equal to 10, which is another simplification, the molecular weight is 20,000, which is probably lower than that of the most simple proteins; (E.g. egg albumin 34,500).
The elementary molecules of living organisms are all characterised by a very high 0.9 dis-symmetry. The representative numbers are between 0.5 and 1.0 which is the maximum. The 0.5 corresponds to perfect homogeneity, i.e. the most symmetrical distribution.
The Author produced detailed experimental setup to illustrate just how difficult it is, in fact it is near impossible to achieve through continuous mixing of two substances, (of finely ground black and white powder) a dis-symmetrical degree of 0.9 from the lowest possible homogeneity of 0.5 degree symmetry.
The probability that a configuration of a degree of dis-symmetry 0.9 would appear under these simplified conditions, that is to make it more probable, would be (if chance alone is considered) as follows: 2.02 x 10-321 = 2.02 / (1+321 zeros).
The volume of a substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond imagination. The radius of such a sphere would be 1082 light year. This amounts to a sphere 1,072 times the size of the presently observable universe and one full of raw materials (our universe is for the most part empty) to make such protein, whose weight, incidentally, is less than the simplest one in the human body.
Even if all the universes and their supplies were gathered into this one large sphere, still the collisions among atoms to react need to occur. Therefore the probability for a single molecule of 0.9 symmetry to be formed by the action of blind-chance alone trough normal thermic agitation is practically nil.
The time needed for these collisions to form only one such molecule during the present existence of our Earth (4.5 x 109 years) would equal to:- “about 10243 years. ( 1 followed by 243 zeros). Compared this with the life on Earth, which began only 3.5 x 109 years ago; (within the 13.79 years of total existence of our Universe). We therefore find ourselves with an untenable situation where there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient time available for the blind-chance development of one single living molecule.
“In addition to the above predicament, life itself is not even in question, but we consider only one of its constituent being: a single molecule, which is of no use because hundreds of millions of identical ones should be required.” (The Author.) Since the requirement for a living cell is so huge, the probability is further diminishing with it to such an extent that the development of one single living cell would be equivalent to admitting a miracle.
The conclusion to this argument is that there is a huge gap between in-animate and animate matter in the physical reality, which science is unable or unwilling to bridge. Therefore, following from the above reasoning, an evidence-based science, that ‘believes’ in only what is observable could still be good science, yet it is essentially an incomplete science.
This becomes logically evident when we consider that it is the logical necessity of a reasoning and adequate mind to seek constantly for understanding and accepting the objective evidence of unobservable, law-like causation (as opposed to chance) in everything. Oddly enough, this is also thebasis of physical sciences.
The dilemma is this: On one hand if we trust science, it is unable to give us scientific evidence-based explanation for the chance origin of the Universe and life in it. On the other hand, if we don’t trust science, then on the basis of philosophical logic we ought to choose necessarily the alternative to chance origin, which is philosophical causality.
The following items are paraphrased from several scientists and cosmologists, which may be of interest to some readers:-
1) There is not one material object in the physical reality that could explain its own existence independently of other material objects.
2) A cause is not only followed by its effect, but it also produces it, therefore every physical change in the reality points to a cause or several causes.
3) Nothing can cause its own existence, otherwise it would have to exist (or to be there already) to do so, in other words, it could not be there before itself.
4) If there exists something today, there never could have been nothing, because nothing can cause nothing.
5) Whatever had a beginning must have an end, and it is called a contingent being because it is dependent in its very existence on other contingent beings outside itself. Furthermore, there is nothing in any physical being that could give a specific reason for its own existence now or ever. Otherwise we could produce a quasi-perpetual motion.
6) Contingent beings undergo changes by losing or acquiring qualities. Such changes cannot be simultaneously a cause (giver) and an effect (receiver) in the same being, because nothing can give what it has never had. In the physical world, energy and matter undergo qualitative changes (degenerate) constantly according to the statistical “law” of entropy.
7) If a finite or infinite entity (material object) or event (material change) in the physical reality is an effect of a cause outside itself, then the whole system to which that entity or event belongs, according to the Law of Proportionality, must also be a corresponding effect of a cause that is acting upon that whole system outside itself.
Through extrapolating to the extreme, this proportionality of causes applies equally to Earth with all its creatures, as well as to all the stars, galaxies and ultimately to the entire Universe. This point has been mentioned also under the ‘proportional’ inter-relation of Life with the whole of the Universe.
The causal extrapolation to large systems, through the proportionality of causes, is truly an extraordinary claim, but with the self-evidence of scientific logic, it forms the basis for the concept of the true ‘first cause‘. In addition, this claim deemed proven adequately by the principle of contradiction between causality and blblind chance all as described above.
It ought to be repeated that the above extraordinary claim of ‘proportionality‘ is about a cause that is acting on a large system, such as e.g. the Universe, from outside itself, is logically analogous to a cause that is acting on an individual object from outside itself.
It must also be emphasised also that this claim is not based on any kind of unreasonable belief in any philosophical theory, physical sciences, nor in any other abstract hypothetical concept, but solely on the evidence-based logic of objective truth, which is the product of reasoning by an adequate mind.
In other words, the same scientific logic of deduction was used by this mental process to prove the philosophical validity of the existence of a true ‘First Cause‘ as was used by the scientists for its attempted rejection.
Repeating the evidence for the extraordinary claim: Material of the human mind is the transcendental, objective truth, which it seeks logically in the reality for its own sake through reasoning constantly in everything understandable and knowable. This human mind can visualise abstract order way beyond material reality, through speculative reasoning, and it is attracted to order and ultimate truth in everything that seeks it or creates it.The scientific, i.e. evidence-based logic is universally claimed to be truth, which in turn is reality itself, and vice versa.
Truth (like reality) cannot contradict truth, otherwise there would be neither scientific knowledge nor any common-sense judgements possible, and in fact it would be impossible to reason out who I am or even think or speak rationally.
Finally, we repeat that through our reasoning process we have arrived at the only logical alternative to ‘chance-origin’ of the Universe,which is the concept and our belief in an ‘Uncaused First Cause’, i.e. a metaphysical Creator, without whom the physical Universe simply would not exist.
The reader may contemplate on the Universal Causality, whose basis found in the Natural Law that connects necessarily the Absolute Creator with His Contingent Creatures. We believe in a Creator, who is the First Cause of everything. We, the human beings, are its Effects, i.e. the Final Cause of creation.
The enigmatic Connection between the First Cause, our Creator and its Effects, ourselves, is Jesus Christ our Redeemer, whom ‘…God greatly exalted, and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’