In the chain of cause & effect, the First cause seems paradoxically unascertainable. Is it therefore cyclical?

Question

If a cause itself is an event that must also have been caused by another preceding one, there is no way we can imagine of any Original cause. Then it can only be construed as a repetitive cycle which is a continuum without any fixed beginning or end.
Incidentally, the Hindu philosophy as enunciated by the 'Vedas' does refer to Time as a repetitive cycle of three phases namely, Creation, Sustenance and Annihilation.

Answer 1

Since the past is beginningless there can be no "first" cause.

This universe did have a beginnig and will therefore have an end, as did and will all the other universes, literally an infinity of them, past ,present and future contained in infinite Space.

There will then be a "first cause" as far as every one single universe is concerned, precisely the cause that brought it into manifestation from the Unmanifested, but overall, in absolute terms, given the infinity and eternity of the Space containing All, the "chain of cause and effect'' itself can only be beginingless.

Answer 2

The cyclical idea was good until the universe was shown to have a beginning and it will apparently have an end.

The phrase "chain of cause and effect" is being dumped by science. We now talk about probable factors. Everything is statistical probability. The random variable is popping up everywhere. This new approach still gives the illusion of causality but it does so by making chance a causal agent, e.g. "it happens by chance". Of course, chance really means a profound ignorance and nothing ever happens by ignorance.

Answer 3

"First" can mean either "the beginning of a sequence" or it can mean "the most fundamental of many". Neither necessarily implies a cycle.

Answer 4

thanks for you 2 points small my friend