Q&A: From Effect to Cause
From Effect to Cause
Question
The Rabbi wrote that you can’t stretch a causal chain out to infinity, since that is certainly not an acceptable explanation.
I wanted to know why this explanation is inferior to the explanation that says that although we have no entity in the world that does not need a cause, surely there was such an entity at the beginning. Seemingly both are absurd to the same degree.
Answer
Because the first is not an explanation but an evasion of explanation. By the way, the second also is not an explanation but a conclusion.
Discussion on Answer
You can phrase things however you want. The problem is not the wording but the substance. An infinite chain of causes is not a causal explanation not because I cannot grasp it, but because there is nothing there to grasp. By the same token, you could offer an explanation based on logical contradictions, or not explain anything at all, and then say that it is similar to an explanation I cannot grasp.
Why can’t you phrase it the same way, just in reverse?
Just as we aren’t capable of grasping an infinite number of causes, so too we aren’t capable of grasping a cause that does not need a prior cause (God).