So, we've all heard the argument from first cause.
Typically it goes something like this, "x causes y, y causes z, ad infinitum".
The objection now is "what causes x?" to which one can either answer "x causes itself, it is God" or "x was caused by another force we don't know of, presumably matter".

Both conclusions don't escape the problem.
Simply giving x a new name, or stating that there is no paradox does not give an answer!

So, we must rethink this issue.

We must ask, can God be equated to x?
The answer is demonstrably, no! God, whatever it may be, is immaterial, if we hold that God had a causal connection with matter, then we hold God to be another object in the chain of objects, the only special attribute (which is not in the essence of the object but only in its relation) is that it is first.
So, if God is not an object in causality, how can it cause?

I remember as a child, my father used to say, "God is prior to all, he is not a body and he does not have a body".
Working with this definition, God is immaterial (has no body, as we already concluded) and he is also prior to causality itself.
We might think of a person, a person is rational, that is what causes it to be a person and not an animal, it is also living, but even before it living it must exist. Existence is prior to all causal relations of the subject, being is primordial.
You can apply this to all things, for a thing to exist it must first "be", a subject which predicates (being, predicating living, predicating rationality, which then contains man).
Now, we might want to go even further, and abstract this principle of being to be something that is present in all things, and therefore also the cause of all things, a complete, simple, unity. "Nothing to something." We might call this, Being, substance, nothing, tao or God, all which hold the same meaning.

For those of you who are familiar with the history of philosophy, this might sound similar to neo platonism, or Islamic theology, indeed this is not from my own intellect but it has been acquired from authors from these movements. Particularly, al-Kindi. This is not a belief I hold dear, merely a thought I found interesting.

So, we've all heard the argument from first cause.
Typically it goes something like this, "x causes y, y causes z, ad infinitum".
The objection now is "what causes x?" to which one can either answer "x causes itself, it is God" or "x was caused by another force we don't know of, presumably matter".

Both conclusions don't escape the problem.
Simply giving x a new name, or stating that there is no paradox does not give an answer!

So, we must rethink this issue.

We must ask, can God be equated to x?
The answer is demonstrably, no! God, whatever it may be, is immaterial, if we hold that God had a causal connection with matter, then we hold God to be another object in the chain of objects, the only special attribute (which is not in the essence of the object but only in its relation) is that it is first.
So, if God is not an object in causality, how can it cause?

I remember as a child, my father used to say, "God is prior to all, he is not a body and he does not have a body".
Working with this definition, God is immaterial (has no body, as we already concluded) and he is also prior to causality itself.
We might think of a person, a person is rational, that is what causes it to be a person and not an animal, it is also living, but even before it living it must exist. Existence is prior to all causal relations of the subject, being is primordial.
You can apply this to all things, for a thing to exist it must first "be", a subject which predicates (being, predicating living, predicating rationality, which then contains man).
Now, we might want to go even further, and abstract this principle of being to be something that is present in all things, and therefore also the cause of all things, a complete, simple, unity. "Nothing to something." We might call this, Being, substance, nothing, tao or God, all which hold the same meaning.

For those of you who are familiar with the history of philosophy, this might sound similar to neo platonism, or Islamic theology, indeed this is not from my own intellect but it has been acquired from authors from these movements. Particularly, al-Kindi. This is not a belief I hold dear, merely a thought I found interesting.