It's been over a century since Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God. Apparently the news of His demise has not reached the general population. In the ensuing century we've had people believe in the myth of racial superiority, scientology, spaceships in comets, death cults, lizard people, neo-paganism, crystals, the Unification Church, the Urantia Book, divination, astrology, voodoo, spiritism, the new world order, aliens, and countless other nutty things. Uniformly the adherents of these weird beliefs are totally convinced that they are right, they will (and often do) die for their beliefs.

Will we believe just about anything? Apparently yes. And we seem remarkably capable of seeing the other guy's belief as silly while not examining our own. What is it that safeguards us from such stupidity? Critical thinking and a fierce commitment to the impartial examination of claims. As soon as we set up a realm of human experience (faith) and make it exempt from rationality we set ourselves up to waste a lot of time, and possibly our lives, in the pursuit of silliness.

From a number of different sources recently I've had people use the old first cause argument to 'prove' God. Of course this is an old argument. It usually goes something like this:

1. There is a universal law of cause and effect.
2. To prevent an infinite regress of causes there must exist a First Cause.
3. The First Cause is God.

Sounds pretty good. But does it really stand up to scrutiny? To begin with is there really a 'law' of cause and effect and if there is, in what realm does it apply?

Cause and effect is actually a philosophical labeling rather than a scientific one. It comes with a particular mechanistic view of the universe as 'stuff' being pushed around by other stuff. It is a particular characteristic of Western thought. Buddhists, for example, speak of 'dependent arising'. Imagine a cat passing a fence with a hole in it and an observer on the other side watching. He sees the head and then the tail. He makes this observation a number of times and concludes (as a westerner) that the cat head 'causes' the cat tail since the head always precedes the tail in time in a predictable fashion. We know however, that such an analysis is faulty since the cat is a single system with inter-dependent parts. Some eastern philosophies see the whole world like this.

Now, in what realms does cause and effect (if it indeed exists) hold? In modern physics there is at least reasonable debate on whether some events are uncaused, and given quantum uncertainty can some effects actually precede their causes? It's very likely a strange world out of the realms of our experience that may act in a completely counter-intuitive fashion. So, the jury is out, cause and effect may NOT be universal.

People who quote first cause often turn out to be christians who believe in 'free will'. Decisions we experience subjectively are objectively electrical and chemical changes in the brain, stuff pushing stuff around. As such they too would be bound by this 'law' of cause and effect. Every mental event is 'caused'. Thus free will is ruled out on the basis of strict adherence to cause and effect.

Also, people use the universality of this 'law' of cause and effect to prove God but then immediately exempt Him from the law. God is eternal and uncaused. It seems a strange form of special pleading to me.

Thus, in summary, the law of cause and effect is a philosophical assumption, it may not hold in all reality, if it does hold it poses propblems for free will and the very 'law' you wish to use to demonstrate God is a law that does not apply to Him.

Note, now, I'm not saying this categorically disproves the notion of First Cause. Rather I'm saying that it is not particularly persuasive.