As Christians, we believe that there had to be a first, uncaused cause for existence. That cause is God. Existence had a beginning and it will have an end.
Eastern religion and philosophy believe that existence is circular. It’s been around for eternity and had no beginning and will have no end. It was never caused…it just “IS”…that is their way of solving “How did something come from nothing?” question, because existence didn’t come from anything. It was always there.
How do we refute that claim?
Here is an outline for how I would approach the problem:
First of all, perhaps the Eastern philosophers did not notice, but they have, in fact, proposed an uncaused cause. They have simply misidentified it as the universe itself, or the Brahman, or what have you.
The trick is then to show that the attributes of the Uncaused Cause do not match those of the Eastern philosophies.
It should be noted that the Eastern philosophies have never
demonstrated the cyclical nature of being—they have effectively simply
postulated it without proof. Their conception of the universe is not unlike that of some of the Presocratic philosophers (most notably Empedocles).
They—like the early Greeks—have taken a characteristic of some natural phenomena (the seasons, birth and death, etc.) and extrapolated it (without demonstration) to all of existence.
(In fact, with all due respect, Eastern philosophies in general do not operate like a true “science” in which conclusions must be rigorously demonstrated. Often, the very rigorousness of reason is called into question.)
Even those natural phenomena, however, are not
entirely cyclical. The seasons return every year, but each year has its own particular characteristics that distinguish it from other years (drought vs. inundation; heat vs. cold; etc.). New generations are born, but the individuals are unique (and even if we accept reincarnation, the reincarnated persons have new and unique experiences).
In any case, the fundamental problem with the Eastern claim is that the universe we know is always an admixture of what Aristotle called
act and
potency. It
actually exists in a certain way right now, but it is tending to a different state (a
potential state at the moment).
For example, it is now summer (in the northern hemisphere); but in a few weeks it will be fall. The northern hemisphere is
actually in summer and
potentially in fall.
That fact does not need to be demonstrated, because it is immediately evident to anyone who observes the world we live in.
The next point is more subtle: only
actually existing things can change potency into act.
Potentially existing things don’t exist yet, so they (obviously) can’t do anything.
So, if the Uncaused Cause is truly
uncaused, that means that no actually existing thing is acting upon it (much less,
potentially existing things!). But since potency can never be actualized without the action of some actually existing thing, it follows that the Uncaused Cause is entirely
actual; it has no admixture of potency whatsoever.
Hence, the Uncaused Cause cannot be the universe itself, but must be something outside that universe.
