DYF: The Law of Causality - My Thoughts

This chapter introduces the reader to the law of causality, the idea of causes and effects.

Now, before I continue, I have an apology to make. A few posts ago I defined the law of causality as simply everything having a cause. As it turns out, however, that definition is wrong, and I'm sorry I misinformed you. What this law really states is that "Every effect has a cause." This is important, and I'll get to that in a minute. Once again Sproul's basis for this seems to be Aristotle, though I suppose Aristotle is probably a good basis to work off of what it comes to logic, seeing as he defined it.

One very important facet of this idea is that it's true by definition. An effect, by definition, is caused by something; it always has a cause, something or someone that caused it to be. Likewise, a cause, by definition, is something or someone that brings something about. A cause literally causes something, it always results in an effect of some kind. So every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect. Neither can exist without the other.

Now, the reason this is important is because it gives us a reason why we don't need to say what caused God to exist unless we can define God as an "effect" of something. If God is eternal, then He has always existed, and thus nothing could have caused Him to come into being, thus He is not an effect. How can He be eternal if something brought Him into existence? If that were the case, then whatever brought God into existence is the truly eternal thing, and God is no longer the everlasting God (and thus, not God). So logically, the Biblical account of God's existence - that is, that He has always existed - seems to be a totally valid option.

This law has been historically misunderstood by some people trying to argue that it doesn't exist, or is otherwise not necessary. John Stuart Mill in particular made the same error I did when he argued against it; he believed the law of causality stated that everything had to have a cause. The problem with that, he argued, is that it leads to a never-ending cycle of causes. If something caused the universe to come into being, what caused that something to exist? Then, what caused that something that caused that something to exist? One could continue that cycle for eternity. But since that's not what the law states, one doesn't have to do that. Logic allows for some eternal something or someone.

This leaves open one question, at least in my mind. There are those who argue, or have argued, that the universe has simply always existed. Nothing caused it; it has just always been. So far as I can tell, this law by itself allows for such a thing. But Biblically, that's not what happened. God created the universe. So how does one argue for an eternal God instead? I know this question is answered later in the book, so I look forward to finding out.