The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[polymath257]

I've come upon an interesting question in a sidestreet of some thinking about God and contingency today, and I'd just like to put it to the forum to solicit comment on it.  It occurred to me that while, even if one accepts that there had to be a first cause, the argument gives no reason why there need be only one first cause.  It would seem possible that there could be multiple first causes so long as the multiple first causes originate simultaneously, and all first causes perform the same initial causative action simultaneously.  Under these constraints, there could be an infinite number of first causes.  But this presents a problem.  According to general relativity, there is no such thing as absolute simulteneity.  Whether or not two events appear simultaneous to an observer is dependent upon their movement relative to the two things occurring and such, so that from one observer's perspective, two first causes might be simultaneous with the observer, who is also a first cause, but another first cause who may be moving with respect to the other three first causes would not see them as simultaneous.  So, while an infinite set of first causes seems possible from the perspective of classical physics, it's not clear that the idea is even coherent from a relativistic perspective.  Thinking about it just now raises another wrinkle, as if the first cause is postulated to be God, from one perspective, God would precede the effects which he causes; however, it's not clear how to define the notion that God as first cause precedes his effects as there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference in relativity, so while God may appear to precede an effect from one observer's perspective, the causal arrows may not be as readily apparent from another in which an effect of God appears to precede God causing it.  I'm not sure what to make of all this.  It seems to open up a whole can of worms with no ready resolution.

@Nishant Xavier : What are your thoughts?

I think the  problem is in the word 'first'. The usual argument only gives the existence of an *uncaused* cause. As you point out, there is nothing that says that uncaused cause is unique.

There is also nothing that says that multiple uncaused causes have to be simultaneous in any reference frame. This allows for a resolution to  your paradox.

I'd also like to point  out that, in cosmology, there *is* an absolute frame of reference for each event: that in which the universe looks isotropic and expands to retain that isotropy. The difficulty, of course, is that absolute framers at different events are not the same.