Name : Venu Agarwal

Roll no: 13110133

Topic: Cause and Effect Relationship

Word count : 2165

What do we mean by Cause and Effect?

Causality is a qualitative relationship between an event (the cause) and an another event (the
effect) where the second event is conceived as a physical consequence of the first event.
Alternatively, this can also be defined as a set of factors (causes) and the corresponding
resultant phenomena (effects). A direct factor is a factor which influences the effect directly i.e
without intervention of any other factors. The term cause is also used to mean explanation
or an answer to a why question, while the term effect is used to mean explanandum.
Numerous fields that involve the application of this theory of Causality are as follows:Physics, Engineering, Biology & Medicine, Psychology, Statistics & Economics, Management,
Humanities, Theology etc. The philosophical perspective on causality has been debated and
deliberated upon over a millenium now. The topic still remains a controversy in modern
philosophy.

Hindu philosophy
Karma is the belief held by Sanathan Dharma and major religions that it is person's actions that are
responsible for all the effects he experiences in his current life and/or in future life, positively or
negatively. The various philosophical schools provide different accounts of the subject. The doctrine
of satkaryavada affirms that the effect inheres in the cause in some way. The effect is thus either a
real or apparent modification of the cause. The doctrine of asatkaryavada affirms that the effect
does not inhere in the cause, but is a new arising. In Brahma Samhita Brahma describes Krishna as
the prime cause of all causes.

Buddhist philosophy
According to Buddhist philosophy, a positive or wholesome action is one that will lead to greater
happiness for ourselves and others, and a negative or unwholesome action is one that will lead to
greater suffering for ourselves or others.
The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent origination" or "dependent
arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes
and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. A traditional example used in
Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and leaning against each other and supporting each
other. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground. For a table to exist, we need
wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. One cause is never enough to bring
about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the

cause of something else. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a
cause, cannot be applied

David Humes views on Theory of Causation

Humes problem of causation
All events in nature seem entirely loose and separate. We observe nothing but one event
following the other, without any tie between them. Thus from our experience of observing one
event following the other, we associate a event with other, calling it as its cause, without being
able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connection
between it and its supposed effect. They only seemed conjoined, but never connected. So, the
problem of causation as quoted by Hume is Even after we have experience of the operations
of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on (a priori)
reasoning, or any process of the understanding.(David Hume, 1737).

Humes Problem of Induction

According to the problem of Causation pointed out by Hume, that until we know 'what exists'
and the 'necessary connexions' between these things that exist, then it is impossible for
Humanity to have certainty of knowledge. This then leads to the further Problem of Induction,
for if we do not know the a priori cause of events then we have no Principles from which to
logically deduce our conclusions. We are left simply observing that one event follows another
and seems connected, but we do not know how or why, thus we must depend upon repeated
observation (Induction) to determine the laws of Nature (the current state of Modern Physics)
and hence tacitly assuming (without reason) that the future is like the past. It is simply a habit
of thinking to connect two events which seem to occur in conjunction and necessarily assumes
that the future will be like the past.

Demonstration of Problem of Induction

The problem of Induction can be demonstrated using Hume's simple example of dropping a
stone such that when I let go of the stone it falls to earth. I can then repeat this experiment any
number of times but despite this number of repetitions does this logically (inductively) infer
that the stone must fall the next time I let it go. Hume argued that it does not, that it is simply a
habit of thinking and that it is quite possible that at some stage in the future the stone will not
fall. This leads to the realization that the logic of induction depends upon repeated observation
and thus the assumption that the future is like the past. As Hume explains; The supposition
that the future resembles the past, is not founded on arguments of any kind, but is derived
entirely from habit.(David Hume, 1737)

Aristotle Theory of Causation

Aristotle describes and argues that any material change in this world is the result of four causes.
These causes are material, formal, efficient and final.
The Material Cause answers the question what something is made out of? The human body of
made up of cells. Wooden boxes are made up of wood. Computers are made out of transistors
and other electronic components. The material cause also explains the general sort of
properties of something. Wooden boxes burn because they are made out of wood. The human
body needs oxygen because its cells need oxygen.

The formal cause is what makes a thing unique. The human body is human, wooden boxes are
boxes, and computers are computers. The difference between a mere collection of cells and a
human body is that a human body has properties and functions that come from a particular
arrangement of the right kind of cells doing the right kind of things. A mere collection of cells is
not the formal cause. A human body is the formal cause.

The efficient cause answers the question what did that? If a ball broke a window, then the
ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause.
If your eye sees, then it sees because light from the object strikes your eyes and causes you to
see what is there. Efficient causes answer the what did that question, but do not answer how
it was done.

The final cause is why efficient causes do what they do and why formal causes do what they do.
Why do balls break windows? The final cause says that because balls are hard and windows are
brittle, they break. Why do rocks fall? Aristotle said that rocks fall because they are heavy. Air is
light, therefore air rises. These are all pointing out the final cause of efficient causes.

Correlation does not imply causation

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that
a correlation between two events does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.
Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is
sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a
logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
A may be the cause of B.
B may be the cause of A.
Some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
There may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause
of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship
between A and B is that A causes B). This is called a self reinforcing system.
The "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a
coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each
other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). If we perform the experiment
greater no. of times, it helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence.
In other words, no conclusion could be made regarding the existence of a cause-and-effect
relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an
actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship
between A and B is statistically significant.

Ontological view from the point of Cause and Effect Theory

Now we apply the theory of cause and effect to the creation of this universe and thus
subsequently proving that God exists. So the question that needs to be answered is, How did
the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Lets look at the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect states that every material
effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without
adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect
never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have
an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not
fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever
effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
So one thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact,
because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000
experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever
caused the Universe could not have been material.
Some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever
had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it
always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always
has existed.

Bible speaks about the cause of creation of universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter
of the first book it says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Acts 17:24
records: God, who made the world and everything in itHe is Lord of heaven and earth.
Exodus 20:11 notes: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all
that is in them. God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis
17:1, God told Abraham I am Almighty God.
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the
effect. The psalmist wrote: Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed
the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of
morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.

Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.
Now one question that comes in our mind is that why does God not have a cause? If we assume
that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the
Universe, then the obvious question is: What caused God? Doesnt the law of cause and
effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this
questionthe word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it.
Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while
studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be
performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter . Science is far from learning
everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal
nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the
job.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions.
It was not conjured up from the creationists magic hat to prove the existence of God (although
it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a
non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God.

References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=37196
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=879
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm