Scientific Perspective

By Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Modern cosmology has repeatedly confronted the notion of a First Cause. General Relativity and observational evidence (like Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expanding cosmos) imply a spacetime origin in the finite past​. As Stephen Hawking noted, if there was a true “point of creation” it would mark a boundary where scientific laws break down and one “would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”​ In the mid-20th century, many physicists were uneasy with a universe that began to exist, in part because it begged for an explanation beyond physics​. An eternal, steady-state universe was philosophically simpler (needing no cause). However, astronomical evidence (e.g. the CMB) eventually discredited eternal-universe models and confirmed a cosmic beginning​. Nobel laureate Arno Penzias remarked that the best data we have “are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses…and the Bible as a whole”​ – highlighting how Big Bang cosmology resonates with the idea of a created universe.

From a thermodynamic perspective, a universe that extends infinitely into the past faces severe problems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which entails an increase in entropy (disorder) over time, implies that an infinitely old universe would have reached a state of maximum entropy (“heat death”) by now, with no usable energy remaining. Yet we observe a cosmos filled with usable energy and structured order. This was used as a scientific hint that the universe is not past-eternal. For example, even speculative cyclic models (universes oscillating in endless big bangs and big crunches) run into an “entropy problem”: disorder would accumulate with each cycle, so an eternal series of past cycles would lead to a cold, dead universe – contrary to what we see​. Modern cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has analyzed such models and found that “all the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”​ He showed that even highly theoretical scenarios (like eternal inflation or cyclic ekpyrotic universes) cannot escape an initial boundary or inception of time​. In short, current physics suggests the cosmos is finite in age, strengthening the case for a First Cause initiating it.

It is important to note that the scientific perspective can only go so far. Physics can describe the early universe fractions of a second after the Big Bang, but the question of the ultimate origin remains open. Scientists have proposed ideas like quantum cosmology in which the universe “creates itself” via spontaneous quantum fluctuations. For instance, Stephen Hawking argued in The Grand Design that given a law like gravity, “the Universe can and will create itself from nothing… [spontaneous creation] is the reason there is something rather than nothing.”​ Such models attempt to dispense with a classical First Cause by saying the universe’s total energy may sum to zero or that time itself started at the Big Bang (so there was no “before”). However, critics point out that these proposals often redefine “nothing” (e.g. a quantum vacuum is not absolute nothing) and still call for an explanation of why physical laws exist at all. Even Hawking’s scenario assumes the prior existence of laws like gravity​. Thus, scientific insights and the First Cause idea interact in a dialogue: discoveries like the Big Bang and entropy bolster the intuition of a transcendent cause, while theoretical physics explores whether a self-contained explanation is possible. Notably, science does not disprove a First Cause; rather, it increasingly confirms a beginning that philosophically invites one. As the astronomer Robert Jastrow famously quipped, when scientists finally climb the mountain of cosmic understanding, they may find “a band of theologians…waiting for centuries” at the summit​. In sum, contemporary cosmology provides a context in which the First Cause argument finds significant support: the universe appears to have originated from nothing physical, which is suggestive of a cause beyond the physical realm​.

Philosophical Perspective

Philosophically, the First Cause argument is a form of the cosmological argument – reasoning from the existence or beginning of the universe to the existence of a transcendent cause (God). This line of thought has a venerable history in Western philosophy and has been refined in various ways over the centuries​. At root is the intuition that the universe’s existence (or certain features of it) requires an explanation, and that an infinite regress of causes is unsatisfactory. Below are key philosophical formulations of the First Cause argument and their developments:

• Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover: The idea of a first cause can be traced to Aristotle (4th century BCE). In his Physics and Metaphysics, Aristotle argued that all motion (change) in the world ultimately requires a prime mover that itself is unmoved. Even though Aristotle believed the world might be eternal, he reasoned that the chain of movers must terminate in a first, unmoved mover to avoid an infinite regress of explanations​. This Unmoved Mover, which actualizes motion in others without being moved, is a necessary, eternal substance – effectively a philosophical precursor to God. The key insight is that contingent things (like moving objects) cannot explain their own existence completely; there must be an ultimate source of change. Aristotle’s concept influenced later religious philosophy by introducing a purely actual, unchanging cause at the summit of reality.
• Aquinas’s Five Ways (Cosmological Arguments): Medieval Christian philosopher-theologian Thomas Aquinas (13th century) built on Aristotle and Muslim thinkers to formulate several cosmological arguments for God. In Summa Theologica I.2.3, Aquinas gives Five Ways, of which the first three are classic First Cause arguments. (1) Argument from Motion: There are things in motion, and nothing moves itself; so there must be a First Mover (identical with God) who initiates all motion without being moved​. (2) Argument from Efficient Cause: Every effect has a cause, and every cause itself has a prior cause, but this chain cannot regress infinitely, so there must be a first uncaused Cause that began the chain​. (3) Argument from Contingency (Necessary Being): Things in the world come into being and pass away (they are contingent). If everything were contingent, there could have been a time when nothing existed – but then nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must exist at least one necessary being that has its own necessity and causes the existence of all contingent beings​. In Aquinas’s view, this necessary being is God. It’s noteworthy that Aquinas did not assume the universe had a beginning in time for his arguments – he actually allowed that the world could be eternally old (as Aristotle thought) yet still needed a sustaining first cause. In other words, Aquinas’s First Cause is not merely a spark at t=0, but a continuous sustainer of existence. Even an eternal universe, in Aquinas’s mind, would require an eternally concurrent cause to uphold it. This nuance distinguishes an essential causal order (simultaneous dependency) from an accidental causal series (temporal sequence). Either way, Aquinas concluded that rational analysis of causation and contingency in reality points to a transcendent, uncaused cause (God) as the ultimate explanation​.
• Kalām Cosmological Argument: In the Islamic Golden Age, philosophers and theologians developed a cosmological proof focusing on the temporal beginning of the universe. This is now known as the kalām cosmological argument (kalām meaning Islamic scholastic theology). One formulation by the theologian Al-Ghazālī (1058–1111) is: (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its coming into being. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Al-Ghazālī defended the premises by arguing it is impossible for the past to be infinite (an actual infinite series of past events cannot exist in reality)​. Since time and the world had a beginning, there must be a transcendent creator (Allah) who caused it. This argument entered Western thought via translations and was later championed by thinkers like Bonaventure in the Christian Middle Ages​. In modern times, the kalām argument has been revived in analytic philosophy (notably by William Lane Craig) as a simple yet powerful case for a First Cause. It appeals to intuition (ex nihilo nihil fit – “out of nothing, nothing comes”) and finds support from contemporary cosmology as discussed above. The conclusion of the kalām argument is that the universe’s cause must be beyond space and time, since it created space-time itself – thus an eternal, immaterial, powerful being is inferred, aligning with the concept of God​.
• Leibniz’s Argument from Sufficient Reason (Contingency): Another classic philosophical approach comes from Gottfried W. Leibniz (1646–1716). Leibniz asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and argued that even if the universe had no beginning, its existence still requires an explanation. He formulated the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): “no fact can be real or existing and no statement true without a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise.”​ The universe, being a collection of contingent facts (things that could conceivably have been otherwise or not existed), cannot contain within itself a sufficient reason for its existence. Even an infinite regress of explanations within the universe would, as a whole, remain unexplained. Therefore, Leibniz concluded the sufficient reason for the universe must lie outside the universe, in a metaphysically necessary being which exists by its own nature​. This necessary being, which explains why there is something rather than nothing, is what we call God. Unlike the kalām argument, Leibniz’s argument doesn’t hinge on a beginning in time; it’s about contingency: the universe doesn’t have to exist, so why does it? The answer: because a non-contingent (necessary) entity wills or causes it to be. Variations of this argument were advocated by Samuel Clarke and others​, and it remains a key part of philosophical theism.

Recent philosophical discussions of the First Cause argument involve both refinements and critiques of these classical ideas. Supporters have developed sophisticated versions using modal logic, set theory (to discuss actual infinites), and metaphysical frameworks, while critics have raised several objections. One challenge is the question of the causal principle itself: must everything that begins have a cause? Philosophers David Hume and later Bertrand Russell questioned why the universe as a whole needs a cause simply because its parts do. Russell famously said, “The universe is just there, and that’s all,”​ rejecting the demand for a further explanation. Hume argued that we cannot assume causation applies beyond the realm of our experience – asking for the cause of the entire universe might be a meaningless question if we’ve never experienced universe-creation​. He also suggested that explaining each part of the universe (each event caused by a prior event) might be sufficient; the whole doesn’t need a separate cause if all the parts are explained​. This is sometimes called the “fallacy of composition” objection – just because every member of a collection has a cause does not imply the collection as a whole has one. Additionally, Immanuel Kant critiqued the cosmological argument by claiming that if it deduces a “necessary being,” it unwittingly relies on the ontological argument (defining God into existence), which he found problematic​.

First Cause defenders have responded in various ways. They note that an infinite regress of causes still doesn’t explain why anything exists at all – it just pushes the problem back indefinitely. Modern proponents argue that causal principles are supported inductively and by the metaphysical intuition that “nothing comes from nothing.” The kalām argument, for instance, has seen lively debate about whether an actual infinite past is possible or if the Big Bang evidence makes the premise of a universe beginning plausible. Some philosophers (e.g. Alexander Pruss, Robert Koons) have offered new arguments for the impossibility of an infinite regress, while others (like Graham Oppy) maintain that a brute fact universe is not inconceivable. Furthermore, the concept of a “necessary being” has been explored deeply: if the universe could, in principle, not have existed, then it seems reasonable to ask why it does – and positing a necessary being provides a coherent answer (albeit one not everyone accepts).

In contemporary philosophy of religion, the First Cause argument is neither fully proved nor refuted – it remains a central topic of discussion. It has a “cottage industry” built around it, with extensive literature analyzing every nuance. While some, like Alvin Plantinga, consider the cosmological argument not decisive and prefer other approaches to belief, others continue to defend its logic. In summary, philosophy provides a structured framework for the First Cause argument, presenting the idea that the chain of causation or the existence of contingent reality must terminate in a self-existent source. Whether one finds this convincing often hinges on one’s evaluation of principles like sufficient reason, the impossibility of actual infinities, and the intuitive force of “something cannot come from nothing.” What’s clear is that the notion of a First Cause has profound philosophical pedigree and remains influential in natural theology.

Theological Perspective

When we turn to theology, the First Cause concept is not just an abstract proposition but a foundational tenet of faith. In the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), God is explicitly identified as the ultimate Creator of all things – essentially the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. Each tradition has its own way of articulating this truth, with scriptural affirmations, theological doctrines, and scholarly interpretations reinforcing the idea. Below, we consider how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam understand the First Cause argument for God within their frameworks.

Judaism

In Judaism, the belief that God is the sole Creator and first cause of the universe is rooted in scripture and centuries of theological reflection. The very first verse of the Hebrew Bible declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This simple statement in Genesis 1:1 introduces God as the ultimate source of everything. The Hebrew term for “created” (bara’) used here implies creation ex nihilo – creation out of nothing​exploregod.com. Jewish commentators note that the Bible does not describe God working with any pre-existing material; rather, all matter, space, and time originate through His word. Thus, from the outset, Jewish theology affirms a First Cause: a singular, transcendent God who freely brings the world into existence. As the medieval poet Yannai wrote, “When nothing was, He called and the world arose.”

Key biblical passages reinforce God’s role as primal cause. For example, the prophet Isaiah, speaking for God, proclaims: “I am the first and I am the last; besides Me there is no god” (Isaiah 44:6). This is understood to mean God is “the First” – existing before all things and causing all things – and “the Last” – the ultimate end of all. Likewise, Proverbs 3:19 says “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations,” indicating divine agency behind the origin of the world. In Jewish thought, God is often called haRishon ve’haAcharon (the First and the Last) and Boreh Olam (Creator of the world). There is a strong sense that nothing precedes God; He is eternal and uncaused, whereas everything else depends on Him for its existence.

Classical Jewish theology and philosophy took the biblical creation belief and engaged with it intellectually. In the early medieval period, Rabbi Saadia Gaon (10th century) devoted extensive arguments to demonstrate creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and to refute the Aristotelian idea of an eternal universe​. Saadia insisted that reason, properly applied, supports the truth of Genesis: the world had a beginning and was produced by the will of God. Another influential work, Chovot HaLevavot (“Duties of the Heart”) by Bahya ibn Paquda (11th century), presents a logical proof of a Creator. Bahya argues from the contingency of the world, asserting three principles: “(1) Something cannot create itself. (2) There must be a first cause which has no prior cause. (3) Anything composite must have been generated (not eternal).”​ These premises lead to the conclusion that an uncaused First Cause brought everything into being – a clear echo of cosmological reasoning within Jewish philosophy.

Perhaps the most significant Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), also dealt with the question of the universe’s origin and the necessity of a First Cause. In his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II), Maimonides examines the debate between an eternal universe (as Aristotle thought) and a created universe (as Genesis teaches). He concludes that while reason cannot prove conclusively either eternity or creation (it was a point of dispute in his day), the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is more plausible and is accepted on the basis of prophetic tradition​. Maimonides underscores that accepting an eternal universe would undermine the foundations of Judaism – negating miracles and God’s active role​. Therefore, he sides with Scripture: time and the cosmos had a beginning, initiated by God. In his 13 foundational principles of faith, Maimonides lists as the very first principle the existence of God and God’s role as Prime Cause: “to know that there is a Creator who is perfect in all ways and He is the Cause of all that exists.” He elaborates that if God did not exist, nothing else could exist, but even if everything else ceased, God alone would remain, as He depends on nothing outside Himself​. This captures the Jewish understanding of God as necessary being and first cause. Maimonides’ words, “He is the cause of all existence… and if He were not to exist, all things would cease”, mirror the cosmological argument’s conclusion​.

Throughout Jewish theology, there is also an appreciation of the limits of human reason on this subject. Thinkers like Judah Halevi (12th century) argued that while we can rationally infer a Creator, full comprehension of creation is ultimately grounded in faith and revelation. The Kabbalistic tradition (Jewish mysticism) describes God as Ein Sof (Infinite) who emanated creation, which is another way of expressing that all existence flows from the Ultimate Source. All streams of Judaism, whether rationalist or mystical, agree on God’s status as Creator and First Cause. In synagogue liturgy, God is praised as the one “who spoke, and the world came into being.” The daily Yigdal hymn, based on Maimonides’ principles, begins: “Exalted be the living God, He exists – unbounded by time… He is One – there is no unity like His… He preceded every being that was created.” This reflects the consensus that God alone is uncreated and everything else owes its being to Him. Thus, Judaism articulates the First Cause argument not as a speculative exercise but as the very core of its monotheistic creed: “In the beginning” God already was, and by His will all things came to be​.

Christianity

Christianity inherited the Jewish belief in creation and further developed the notion of God as First Cause, especially as it engaged with Greek philosophical ideas. Scripture for Christians is unequivocal that God is the Creator of the entire universe. The opening of the Gospel of John attests to Christ’s role in creation: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Here, “him” (the Logos or Word) refers to Christ, aligning with the belief that Jesus, as divine Word, was the agent of creation. This New Testament affirmation echoes the Old Testament and identifies all things – the whole of reality – as coming into existence through God’s causal action. Another example, Hebrews 11:3, states: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” This clearly teaches creation ex nihilo: the visible world did not originate from prior physical matter, but from the fiat of God. In short, the Bible consistently presents God as the ultimate cause behind everything, and nothing exists that God did not will to exist.

Early Christian theologians, such as the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, emphasized creation from nothing to distinguish the Christian view from Greek eternalism. In the 2nd century, Theophilus of Antioch wrote, “God made everything out of nothing” (ex nihilo) by His Word, and Irenaeus argued against the Gnostic idea of pre-existent matter by affirming that matter itself was created by God. By the time of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), the Nicene Creed professes faith in “one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” This creedal statement encapsulates the First Cause doctrine: there is no corner of reality that lies outside God’s creative act – He is the sole source. God is often called in Christian writings Primus Motor (First Mover) or Causa Prima (First Cause), and Alpha and Omega (first and last letters of Greek alphabet), indicating He is the beginning and the end of all things. Revelation 22:13 has God declaring, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End,” a divine self-description that underlines God’s eternal pre-existence and ultimate causality.

Christian theology has also been deeply shaped by philosophical articulations of the First Cause argument. Thomas Aquinas, as discussed, synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. While Aquinas accepted on faith the truth of creation in time (as taught in Genesis), he demonstrated that even if the universe were eternal, it would still absolutely depend on God as the causal ground of its being​. In other words, Christianity teaches God not only caused the universe to begin, but keeps it in existence at every moment. In Aquinas’s view (and mainstream Christian thought), if God were to “stop causing” the universe, it would cease to exist instantly​. This idea of continuous creation or conservation emphasizes God’s role as a perpetual, sustaining First Cause – not a one-time event that then left the world to run on its own.

Church theologians also made philosophical arguments for God’s existence from creation. For instance, St. Bonaventure in the 13th century favored the kalām-like argument that the world must have a beginning and therefore a Beginner​. Leibniz’s argument (discussed above) was embraced by some Christian apologists because it dovetailed with the doctrine of contingency – creatures depend on the Creator. In the 17th–18th centuries, writers like Samuel Clarke used the cosmological argument (from contingency and sufficient reason) in explicitly theological works to convince skeptics of a self-existent God​.

All major branches of Christianity – Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant – concur that God is the ultimate cause of the universe’s existence. The difference is mostly in emphasis: Roman Catholic tradition has a long history of natural theology (using arguments like First Cause to know God by reason), as reflected in the Catholic Catechism which states that from the world’s motion, becoming, and contingency one can infer God as “the origin and the end of the universe.”​ It explicitly teaches that through creation, one can come to know “a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality ‘that everyone calls God.’”​ This line in the Catechism directly alludes to Aquinas’s cosmological argument and confirms that the Church holds the First Cause idea as consonant with its faith. Protestant theology, especially in the rationalist era, also employed cosmological arguments (e.g. Presbyterian theologian Jonathan Edwards and Anglican William Paley both appealed to the need for an ultimate cause). Eastern Christianity is less focused on syllogistic proofs, but its liturgy and doctrinal statements equally affirm God as “Creator of all things, visible and invisible,” leaving no room for any co-eternal entity alongside God.

In contemporary Christian thought, the First Cause argument often serves as a bridge between science and faith. Many Christian theologians and apologists welcome the Big Bang theory as supportive of the idea of a transcendent Creator. The Vatican astronomer (and priest) Georges Lemaître, who first proposed the Big Bang model, himself saw no conflict with his faith – rather, he spoke of the “primordial atom” theory as pointing to a day without yesterday, possibly akin to Fiat lux (“Let there be light”). Pope Pius XII in 1951 famously remarked that scientific study of cosmic origins was validating the Christian doctrine of creation (though he was careful not to claim it as a formal proof of God). Evangelical apologists today frequently use the kalām cosmological argument, fortified by modern cosmology, as part of their case for God’s existence. For example, William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher) argues that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator who chose to create, since an eternal impersonal cause could not produce a temporal effect without the effect being eternal as well​. This aligns with the traditional Christian view of a free, personal God creating in time. In sum, Christian theology wholeheartedly embraces the First Cause concept: God is the uncreated Creator, the beginning of all beginnings. Everything other than God – from the tiniest particle to the grandest galaxy – exists because God made it and sustains it. As Colossians 1:16-17 says, “all things have been created through Him and for Him… and in Him all things hold together.” The First Cause argument in Christianity is thus not merely an argument but the very framework of reality as revealed by the faith.

Islam

Islam places tremendous emphasis on God (Allah) as the sole, absolute Creator and Sustainer of the universe, making the First Cause notion a central pillar of Islamic theology. The very first words of the Qur’an are “In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. All praise is for Allah, Lord of the Worlds” – acknowledging Allah as the Rabb (Lord, Sustainer) of everything that exists. The Qur’an repeatedly asserts that the heavens and the earth and everything within them were created by Allah for a purpose. One striking verse is Qur’an 52:35-36, where God asks rhetorically: “Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are not certain.”​ This Qur’anic question succinctly presents a cosmological challenge: the unbelievers are asked to consider how they and the universe came to be. It offers only two alternatives aside from God – either things popped into existence uncaused (“created by nothing”) or they are self-caused – only to reject both as absurd. By implication, the only coherent answer is that Allah created them, since nothing comes from nothing and nothing creates itself. Thus the Qur’an itself deploys a simple First Cause argument to direct minds toward God.

The Qur’an also emphasizes that the universe had a beginning willed by God. Surah Al-Anbiya (21:30) says: “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one piece, then We parted them…?”​ This verse is often interpreted to mean that the cosmos started as a unified entity before diverging – a description that some compare loosely to the Big Bang. It underscores that creation was a deliberate act (“We separated them”), implying time and a starting point. The verse immediately continues to note that Allah made every living thing from water, further stressing His creative power. Another verse, Surah Al-Baqara (2:117), states: “Originator of the heavens and earth – when He decrees a matter, He only says to it ‘Be!’ and it is.” The word “Originator” (Arabic Badi’) conveys creating something novel without precedent or materials – again, creation from nothing. The name of Allah “Al-Khaliq” means The Creator, and “Al-Bari’” means The Initiator, names which Muslims invoke daily, reinforcing that Allah alone brought forth all existence. Moreover, the Qur’an describes Allah as “Ahad” (Single/Unique) and “Samad” (Eternal Refuge – the One on whom all else depends) in Surah 112, implicitly presenting Him as the self-sufficient First Cause. Surah 57:3 declares: “He is the First and the Last, the Most High and the Most Near…”​. Classical Islamic scholars explain “the First” (Al-Awwal) to mean there is nothing before Him – He is pre-eternal with no cause – and “the Last” (Al-Akhir) to mean there is nothing after Him – He is the ultimate end to which all affairs return​. Thus, both the Qur’an and the 99 Names of God in Islamic tradition articulate the concept that Allah is the uncaused Cause of everything, existing beyond the confines of creation.

Historically, Islamic theology (‘Ilm al-Kalām’) and philosophy (falsafa) engaged deeply with the First Cause argument. Early Muslim mutakallimūn (theologians) like those of the Muʿtazilite and Ashʿarite schools argued for creation in time against the Aristotelian idea of an eternal universe. Al-Kindi (c. 9th century) is credited with one of the first formal cosmological arguments in Islamic philosophy, reasoning that the world must have a beginning and a cause (he uses the example of the impossibility of an actual infinite to prove a temporal beginning). Later, Al-Ghazālī in his treatise “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” (Tahāfut al-Falāsifa) explicitly refuted the eternality of the world as taught by Avicenna and Averroes, and he presented the syllogism given earlier: everything that begins has a cause; the world began; so it has a cause – namely, God​. Ghazālī considered it “an axiomatic principle” that something which begins cannot begin without a cause to give it existence​. He devoted extensive arguments to show that an infinite temporal regress is impossible (using examples very similar to those later popularized as “Hilbert’s Hotel” paradox). His work had a profound impact, later influencing Christian Scholastics. In the philosophical tradition, Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037) provided a complementary argument: the argument from contingency (which we saw via Leibniz, but Avicenna developed it independently). Avicenna distinguished between “Necessary Existence” and “possible (contingent) existence.” In his philosophy, all observable things are “possible” – they don’t exist by their own necessity – so their existence must ultimately derive from something that exists of its own necessity (wājib al-wujūd). He reasoned that there must be a Necessary Being that causes everything else, and this being is one, uncaused, and cannot not exist. This is effectively a First Cause (though Avicenna’s view allowed that the cosmos could be eternal as an emanation from the Necessary Being – a view the theologians like Ghazālī disputed, insisting on a beginning). Despite internal debates, both schools agreed on God as the transcendent first cause or necessary ground of all being. The difference was whether God created at a first moment in time (the orthodox Islamic view) or in an eternal emanative relationship (the Avicennian view). Orthodox Islam overwhelmingly embraced creation ex nihilo in time, as it aligns with the Qur’an and God’s omnipotence: God is not constrained to create eternally, but chose to create a finite time ago, and could have chosen otherwise.

Islamic scripture and creed also stress that nothing is co-eternal with God – no primordial matter, no secondary gods. The Muslim confession of faith (shahada) that “there is no god but Allah” implies not only monotheism but that only Allah is uncreated. All else (the universe, matter, energy, even time) is His creation. Classical Sunni creed (e.g. the Aqeedah of Al-Tahawi, 10th c.) explicitly states that God is eternal without beginning, and He brought creation into existence when He willed, out of nothing. This is essentially the First Cause doctrine in dogmatic form.

In contemporary Islam, scholars and apologists frequently use the First Cause argument, often pointing out how modern science echoes what the Qur’an already revealed. It is common to hear Muslim speakers mention that the Big Bang theory corroborates the Qur’anic idea of the heavens and earth initially being joined (21:30) and the universe having an origin. For example, modern commentators note that the phrase “We separated them” in 21:30 “suggests a singular origin point” and that the Quran “underscores a moment of creation ex nihilo (from nothing), necessitating a Creator.”​ The dependency of the universe is also highlighted in verses like “O mankind, you are those in need of Allah, but Allah is Free of need” (Qur’an 35:15), which philosophically mirrors the contingency argument: everything needs God, but God needs nothing​. Another verse asks, “Is there any creator other than Allah?” (35:3), challenging the listener to recognize the absurdity of any alternative cause. Thus, the Qur’an itself is rich with invitations to infer a sole First Cause – using both cosmological and teleological reasoning – and Muslim scholars leverage these in dialogue with atheism or other worldviews. Notably, the term “kalam cosmological argument” in Western philosophy honors its Islamic origins.

In sum, Islam unequivocally teaches that Allah is the First Cause and Creator of the universe. The theological significance is not merely that the universe has an origin, but that its origin is purposeful and from a personal God. The First Cause in Islam is not an abstract principle but God, who is merciful, wise, and actively involved in His creation. The conclusion of the Islamic First Cause argument is captured well in the Qur’anic proclamation: “Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian over all things” (39:62). Everything that exists other than Allah is makhluq (created), contingent on His will. By recognizing the heavens and earth as having begun by God’s command, Islam reinforces human dependence on God and God’s ultimate sovereignty. Whether through simple scripture-based reasoning or elaborate philosophical discourse, the message is the same: the chain of causation and existence finds its terminus in Allah, the One without a second, the eternal refuge of all.

In conclusion, across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the concept of a First Cause is a unifying theme that identifies God as the transcendent origin of the universe. Each faith, drawing from its scriptures – be it the Torah, the Bible, or the Qur’an – and its intellectual traditions, asserts that the reality we inhabit is neither self-caused nor uncaused, but caused by one ultimate Creator. Scientific inquiry into cosmic origins, philosophical exploration of causality and contingency, and theological doctrine all seem to point toward the same idea: that being is ultimately grounded in the will and existence of a First Cause. For believers, this First Cause is not an abstract force but God – a reality “that everyone calls God” in Aquinas’s famous phrase. Thus, the First Cause argument serves as a powerful point of convergence between reason and faith, suggesting that the existence of the universe is intelligible only if we acknowledge a self-existent, eternal divine Being who set all things in motion and brought all things into existence​.

Sources: Cosmological argument and historical perspectives ​plato.stanford.edu​; scientific cosmology and Big Bang evidence ​thinkingtobelieve.com; Stephen Hawking and universe’s self-creation claim​wordonfire.org; entropy and cyclic universe considerations ​thinkingtobelieve.com; Hawking and Vilenkin on a cosmic beginning ​thinkingtobelieve.com; Aristotle, Aquinas, and philosophical formulations ​plato.stanford.edu​; Hume and Russell critiques ​plato.stanford.edu​plato.stanford.edu; Jewish theology and philosophers on creation ​judaism.stackexchange.com ​etzion.org.il; Christian doctrinal statements and Catechism ​vatican.va; Qur’anic verses and Islamic thought on Allah as First Cause​ quran.com​.