# A Metaphysical Framework for the Cause of Everything
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 11, 2026, 10:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390 "2026-10-11T10:24:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Echogem222](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Echogem222)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2026, 10:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/1 "2026-10-11T10:24:39Z")
## **Introduction**
When probing the origin and structure of existence, thinkers throughout history have inevitably confronted fundamental paradoxes: How did reality begin? Can time extend backward forever? What does it mean for something to come from “nothing”?
To resolve these paradoxes, we must move past conventional notions of causality, infinite time, and vacuum states. By examining the logical impossibility of an infinite past and re-evaluating the definition of “nothingness,” we arrive at a radical conclusion: the foundational Cause of Everything cannot exist inside reality, nor can it be governed by human logic, time, or moral frameworks. Instead, it operates on a level beyond existence itself.
## **1. The Paradox of an Infinite Past and the Necessity of a Cause**
If the universe had no beginning, then time would consist of an infinite sequence of past events. However, an actual infinity can never be completed or fully traversed. If an infinite number of moments had to pass before today could occur, the present moment would never arrive — much like attempting to reach the end of an endless counting exercise.
Furthermore, an eternal, uncaused chain of physical events eliminates ultimate explanation. If every event is merely the result of an earlier physical event stretching backward forever, then individual occurrences resemble dominoes falling without a starting push or an underlying rationale for why the row exists at all.
Because an infinite regress leads to a logical standstill, reality requires a foundational cause to initiate existence and ground cause-and-effect.
## **2. Redefining “Nothingness”: Relative vs. Absolute**
A common obstacle in metaphysical discussion is the conflation of two distinct concepts of “nothing”:
- **Relative Nothingness (Bounded Absence):** This refers to the absence of a specific object within a defined space. For example, stating there are “zero brooms in a closet” requires a pre-existing room, a surrounding universe, and a conceptual definition of a broom. This is not true nothingness; it is simply a localized void within an established system.
- **Absolute Nothingness (True Non-Being):** This is the total absence of matter, space, time, properties, boundaries, and concepts. It cannot be contained, searched for, or defined.
## **3. The Ultimate Cause Beyond Logic and Existence**
If the Cause of Everything cannot be an item inside the universe or a state of absolute non-being, it must transcend the entire structure of physical reality and traditional logic:
## **Beyond Counting and Duration**
Asking whether the primary cause consists of one cause, multiple causes, or an infinite number applies internal counting rules to something that exists outside the framework where counting applies. Similarly, describing the source as lasting “forever” still relies on duration and time. The fundamental cause operates beyond duration — existing on a level that precedes the dimensions of time and space altogether.
## **Beyond the Dualism of Existence**
Human logic classifies reality into things that _exist_ or _do not exist_. However, because “existence” is a property of objects within reality, the ultimate Cause must be **beyond existence**. It is not a “thing” among other things, but the uncaused source from which the category of existence itself arises.
At this level, standard human logic reaches its boundary. The ultimate foundation of reality is not irrational; rather, it is trans-rational — operating outside the reach of human mental categories.
## **4. The Origin of Good, Evil, and Human Meaning**
Tracing reality back to an uncaused, transcendent source leads to a critical realization regarding morality and purpose: **the Cause of Everything is not moral or immoral.**
Good and evil require relationships, choices, conscious agents, and boundaries to exist. They cannot operate in an uncaused void. Consequently:
**A.) Morality as an Internal Feature:** Good and evil are not the creators of reality; they emerged _with_ existence. They function as the internal governing principles of conscious experience inside the universe.
**B.) The Transcendent Source:** Relative to the ultimate Cause, foundational forces like good and evil act as manifestations — or “puppets” — arising from the void, being the cause of everything.
**C.) The Grounding of Meaning:** The meaning of life does not need to be written into the transcendent Cause to be valid. Meaning exists and holds power precisely where human experience occurs: inside the framework of existence itself.
## **Conclusion**
By distinguishing between bounded absence and absolute non-being, and by acknowledging the limits of infinite regress, we uncover a reality rooted in an uncaused, transcendent origin. This ultimate Cause lies beyond time, counting, and the binary of existing versus non-existing. While human moral systems and existential meaning do not govern this ultimate source, they remain fully real and vital within the realm of human experience — providing structure, purpose, and direction within existence itself.
One might argue that a cause is always a something, and normally it is, because it normally connects to something that exists, but when its meaning it applied to the cause of everything, it doesn’t apply to the cause of everything, instead, it bounces off of it, and is defined as, “an undefined nothing that brings forth something”.
So when the void creates something (meaning the cause of everything), what that amounts to is something just popping into existence, with zero explainable explanation as to why that something came to be, other thing by something which is not anything or everything. Meaning the Void is not something which cannot be proven to be nothing to us in the sense of absolute nothing, and in fact, everything can be used as evidence for this… though not easily since you first have to understand just about everything to be able to prove when something suddenly pops into existence.
---
### Author:  [@Rocken44](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Rocken44)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2026, 10:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/2 "2026-10-11T10:31:28Z")
Nice breakdown here, but it doesn’t solve the problem. If our reality is caused by something beyond our reality, then that only answers the question for OUR reality, not for all of existence itself. The cause of that thing which caused our reality must also be understood. So we are again stuck with the same problem as before, either an infinite regress or a “first cause”, both of which are irrational.
---
### Author:  [@Echogem222](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Echogem222)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2026, 11:10am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/3 "2026-10-11T11:10:16Z")
I don’t know how you’re coming to that conclusion, the cause of everything should not be understood in my theory, it should not be defined at all. That is what logically follows in my theory.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2026, 11:12am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/4 "2026-10-11T11:12:36Z")
You’re in the same problem. The question for the cause of ‘everything’ means ‘everything’ as in universe: all that exists. There is no cause, since that cause would need to exist in order to produce it.
---
### Author:  [@eodnhoj7](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/eodnhoj7)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 2:50am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/5 "2026-10-12T02:50:50Z")
You fail to take into account that you are applying distinctions where you see fit, and by that process anything goes…thus every other theory.
The event of distinction is prior to and mediative of all the things you claim…including caused and uncaused.
---
### Author:  [@MrAuthoritarian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/MrAuthoritarian)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 1:47pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/6 "2026-10-12T13:47:59Z")
If existence is infinite the notion of past, present, and future becomes illusory.
Infinite is one gigantic constant cosmic flow of all existence. There is no real reason for the beginning of everything, infinite works just fine in its place.
🤡
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 2:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/7 "2026-10-12T14:17:50Z")
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> If the universe had no beginning, then time would consist of an infinite sequence of past events.
No, that’s only so if you imagine the temporal dimension as an infinite line. Probably every culture ever has imagined time as a line. The only logically perfect assumption however is that time is a circle (the temporal dimension is closed).
I guess now anyone reading this is already thinking about cycles, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. You’re thinking about cycles because you imagine time to be a line.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 3:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/8 "2026-10-12T15:25:07Z")
That’s why it makes more sense to ask for the cause, not for something prior. You can see that you can ask for a cause of the universe even if there is no ‘first’ time - as a ‘circle’, for example
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 10:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/9 "2026-10-12T22:00:50Z")
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> When probing the origin and structure of existence,
one would HAVE TO first assume or believe that there was ‘an origin’ to begin with, if one were to probe or think about ‘an origin’ of Existence/Everything.
WHY one would ‘probe’ something that might not even exist; only ‘they’ would fully know.
Why probe something that is just an assumption or belief only?
Is there any proof that Existence begun?
If no, then probing some thing that might or not exist is ridiculous from the start here.
But, if there is proof, then what proof is ‘that’, exactly, that Existence, Itself, begun?
Now, obviously there is ‘a structure’ of Existence, which you can so-call ‘probe’, but unless you have proof that Existence begun, any ‘probe’ into Its origin is just absurd.
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> When probing the origin and structure of existence, thinkers throughout history have inevitably confronted fundamental paradoxes: How did reality begin? Can time extend backward forever? What does it mean for something to come from “nothing”?
If the word ‘reality’ is referring to Existence, then ‘reality’ did not begin. But, of course, you might mean something else when you use the word ‘reality’.
‘Time’ is NOT something that ‘extends’.
What it means for “something to come from nothing” is ‘an impossibility’ as well as ‘an absurdity’.
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> To resolve these paradoxes,
What definition do you use for the word ‘paradox’, exactly?
As can be very clearly seen throughout these philosophy forums, different people use different, and even paradoxically, opposing definitions.
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> To resolve these paradoxes, we must move past conventional notions of causality, infinite time, and vacuum states. By examining the logical impossibility of an infinite past and re-evaluating the definition of “nothingness,” we arrive at a radical conclusion: the foundational Cause of Everything cannot exist inside reality, nor can it be governed by human logic, time, or moral frameworks. Instead, it operates on a level beyond existence itself.
Well, this is ‘one claim’.
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> 1. The Paradox of an Infinite Past and the Necessity of a Cause
Clearly, ‘the way’ you use the word ‘paradox’ here is NOT ‘the way’ I use that word, if ‘we’ compare this sentence of yours here with your prior paragraph. So, already absolute confusion could have set in if I were NOT open and seeking out clarification ‘from you’.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 10:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/10 "2026-10-12T22:02:05Z")
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Nice breakdown here, but it doesn’t solve the problem. If our reality is caused by something beyond our reality, then that only answers the question for OUR reality, not for all of existence itself. The cause of that thing which caused our reality must also be understood. So we are again stuck with the same problem as before, either an infinite regress or a “first cause”, both of which are irrational.
Why are ‘an infinite regress’ and ‘a first cause’ both irrational to you, exactly?
What do both of those terms mean or refer to, exactly, to you?
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 10:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/11 "2026-10-12T22:05:02Z")
> [@Echogem222](#):
>
> I don’t know how you’re coming to that conclusion, the cause of everything should not be understood in my theory, it should not be defined at all. That is what logically follows in my theory.
So, are you saying and claiming here that there is ‘a thing’ that caused absolutely everything, but human beings ‘should not’ understand ‘that thing’, and human beings ‘should not’ define ‘that thing’ at all?
If yes, then why ‘should’ human beings not understand ‘it’ and not define ‘it’?
What would be the purpose of this, exact?
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 10:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/12 "2026-10-12T22:08:06Z")
> [@eodnhoj7](#):
>
> You fail to take into account that you are applying distinctions where you see fit, and by that process anything goes…thus every other theory.
>
> The event of distinction is prior to and mediative of all the things you claim…including caused and uncaused.
That ‘a tree’ for example is ‘distinct’ from ‘a sea’ or ‘an elephant’ is not ‘prior to’ anything. And, that ‘distinction’ itself it could be said really only exists in human thought and conception only, is also not ‘prior to’ anything.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/13 "2026-10-12T22:12:29Z")
> [@MrAuthoritarian](#):
>
> If existence is infinite the notion of past, present, and future becomes illusory.
>
> Infinite is one gigantic constant cosmic flow of all existence. There is no real reason for the beginning of everything, infinite works just fine in its place.
There is a real reason for the beginning of everything, people just need to first learn what ‘In the beginning’ or what ‘the beginning of everything’ even means and is really referring to.
Everything being infinite will always word so-called ‘just fine’, but human beings who are a part of everything have a desire, want, or need to ‘look for’ and find reason, for things.
Which, by the way, there is a ‘real reason’ for everything and every thing.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> > [@Echogem222](#):
> >
> > If the universe had no beginning, then time would consist of an infinite sequence of past events.
>
> No, that’s only so if you imagine the temporal dimension as an infinite line. Probably every culture ever has imagined time as a line. The only logically perfect assumption however is that time is a circle (the temporal dimension is closed).
Once again, instead of ‘looking at’ at ‘what actually exists’, only, ‘this one’ still believes, absolutely, that assuming ‘what could exist’ is a far better thing to do, and then, laughably, believes that its own presumed and believed conclusion is not just the ‘best assumption’ but is the ‘only logically perfect assumption’ to have and hold.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> I guess now anyone reading this is already thinking about cycles, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. You’re thinking about cycles because you imagine time to be a line.
Okay.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> > [@Rocken44](#):
> >
> > Nice breakdown here, but it doesn’t solve the problem. If our reality is caused by something beyond our reality, then that only answers the question for OUR reality, not for all of existence itself. The cause of that thing which caused our reality must also be understood. So we are again stuck with the same problem as before, either an infinite regress or a “first cause”, both of which are irrational.
>
> Why are ‘an infinite regress’ and ‘a first cause’ both irrational to you, exactly?
>
> What do both of those terms mean or refer to, exactly, to you?
Since “dustin l” is not able to just be open and honest and answer these questions, there is NO ‘problem’ here, nor are both ‘infinite regress’ and ‘first cause’ irrational at all here.
There is NO ‘infinite regress’, as the ‘first cause’ is already known and is an irrefutable Fact.
---
### Author:  [@Rocken44](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Rocken44)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 11:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/14 "2026-10-14T11:05:07Z")
If there is a “first cause” then you admit something doesn’t need to have reasons for being what it is, it “just happens” for literally NO reason at all. So that is you, you believe in that.
Therefore, because you believe in such an irrationality, there is no reason to claim that other things might also just happen for NO REASON AT ALL. Therefore we can just stop questioning anything and claim that everything is happening for absolutely no reason at all, therefore causation is meaningless and we can claim the problem is solved! Yay!
Honestly though, if you are unable to understand that once you accept a supposed “causeless event” which is what a first cause is claimed to be (as you are claiming it was caused by nothing at all) then you have opened the door to any other irrationality that may be convenient to believe in. Because you have no basis or logic by which to justify a first cause over any other cause, and not only because it is just claimed to be “first” but because you have not explained anything about what makes it special, its logical structure or its ontological requirement or anything else about it. You don’t even realize that you would need to do that in order for what you are claiming to make sense. But again that isn’t even the worst of it, since now you have accepted irrationality into your world-model and there is no reason to stop there. Also your entire world-model is now BASED ON a founding irrationality which you, by very definition, cannot even explain. It may still be possible to build something like a rational model from such an irrational foundation, if you were very very careful and accepted the risks and unknowns involved, but you aren’t even aware that you are doing something irrational to begin with.
Try again?
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 1:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/15 "2026-10-14T13:01:33Z")
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> If there is a “first cause” then you admit something doesn’t need to have reasons for being what it is, it “just happens” for literally NO reason at all.
NO, I CERTAINLY DO NOT admit this AT ALL.
There is A reason for absolutely EVERY thing.
‘you’ seem to have a VERY DIFFERENT view and perspective of what the words ‘first cause’ mean and/or are referring to, exactly. Which is NOT at all surprising and unexpected here.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Therefore, because you believe in such an irrationality,
LOL, LOL, LOL
And, ONCE AGAIN, ‘we’ have ANOTHER PRIME example of ANOTHER one who assumes some thing, jumps to a conclusion, based off of absolutely nothing than its own assumption/s, and then, sadly and unfortunately, believes its own made up conclusion is absolutely true and right.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Therefore, because you believe in such an irrationality, there is no reason to claim that other things might also just happen for NO REASON AT ALL.
Here ‘we’ can clearly see ANOTHER one who has taken “itself” off on some completely unknown tangent into some very dark and lonely place.
And, again, HOW to bring these types of people back ON TRACK is a rather cumbersome exercise.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Therefore we can just stop questioning anything and claim that everything is happening for absolutely no reason at all, therefore causation is meaningless and we can claim the problem is solved! Yay!
If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ and some others REALLY WANT TO DO, then by all means ‘you’ and ‘them’ are absolutely free to do so.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Honestly though, if you are unable to understand that once you accept a supposed “causeless event” which is what a first cause is claimed to be (as you are claiming it was caused by nothing at all) then you have opened the door to any other irrationality that may be convenient to believe in.
WHEN, EXACTLY, did I EVER say that ‘it’ was caused by NOTHING AT ALL?
Here ‘we’ have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER one making a Truly False claim ‘about me’.
But, again, MAYBE I MISSED something, so I wait to see if I EVER made such a claim.
I am NOT sure WHY I would, considering I KNOW the irrefutable Fact of the very things that ‘cause’ the ‘First Cause’ to exist in the first place
And, NO ‘that’ is NOT A contradiction AT ALL.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Because you have no basis or logic by which to justify a first cause over any other cause, and not only because it is just claimed to be “first” but because you have not explained anything about what makes it special, its logical structure or its ontological requirement or anything else about it.
But I HAVE.
Just because ‘you’ may not yet have seen it NEVER means that I HAVE NOT explained anything.
I have ALREADY partly explained WHAT It is EXACTLY, and HOW It works, EXACTLY.
And, by the way, there is quite a lot more to explain, and in far greater detail, which ends up being IRREFUTABLE.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> You don’t even realize that you would need to do that in order for what you are claiming to make sense.
WHY do ‘you’ BELEIVE ABSOLUTELY that ‘you’, of all people, would KNOW what ‘I’ supposedly do not realise here, EXACTLY?
OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ‘I’ would NEET to explain these things to ‘you’ people BEFORE people like “yourself” could make sense of and understand ALL of this.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> But again that isn’t even the worst of it, since now you have accepted irrationality into your world-model and there is no reason to stop there.
LOL So, ‘you’ ‘TRIED TO’ place ‘your’ OWN straw man of irrationality into ‘my words’, and ‘now’ LAUGHABLY ‘try to’ claim that I have ‘now’ accepted ‘your own made-up irrationality’ is even MORE NONSENSICAL and ABSURD.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Also your entire world-model is now BASED ON a founding irrationality which you, by very definition, cannot even explain.
LOL Explaining HOW ‘your’ OWN INTRODUCED IRRATIONALITY, which ‘you’ are ‘TRYING’ your HARDEST to put onto ‘me’ is of ‘your OWN DOING’ is as SIMPLE and as EASY as explaining HOW and WHY what I said and meant here makes PERFECT SENSE and which NO one could refute.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> if you were very very careful and accepted the risks and unknowns involved, but you aren’t even aware that you are doing something irrational to begin with.
If only ‘you’ KNEW “dustin l”. If only ‘you’ KNEW.
Now, I will here state that I stand behind what I have said and written here, KNOWING that I can EXPLAIN and PROVE what I said and wrote IRREFUTABLY SO.
> [@Rocken44](#):
>
> Try again?
I have ALREADY SAID and STATED what I WANT TO.
I, again, now wait for those with enough interest and curiosity.
What the words ‘First Cause’ mean or refer to, EXACTLY, and HOW It exists ALWAYS is ALREADY KNOWN, and IRREFUTABLE.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 4:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/16 "2026-10-14T16:55:46Z")
Classic:
A: “Everything happens for a reason”
B: “Then _what is the reason_ that everything happens for a reason?”
In fact, yes, there has to be something causeless. There is no way out
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 4:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/17 "2026-10-14T16:58:24Z")
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> That’s why it makes more sense to ask for the cause, not for something prior. You can see that you can ask for a cause of the universe even if there is no ‘first’ time - as a ‘circle’, for example
No, a cause is again a prior event on a line. Time that is a circle (circular) doesn’t need a cause.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 9:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/18 "2026-10-14T21:49:55Z")
Of course, time in its entirety may very well not have a cause
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 10:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/19 "2026-10-14T22:11:06Z")
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> Classic:
>
> A: “Everything happens for a reason”
>
> B: “Then _what is the reason_ that everything happens for a reason?”
1. Causality.
2. To bear witness to the beauty ‘I’ am Creating.
The second answer is, by the way, the same answer to the question, ‘Why does the Universe/Everything exist?’
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> In fact, yes, there has to be something causeless. There is no way out
The Universe, Itself, ALWAYS exists, HERE-NOW. And so could be classed and/or called ‘causeless’. However, the two fundamental things that also ALWAYS co-exist are what ‘causes’ the Universe to be exactly what It is.
Now, these two things, which ALWAYS exist as well, could also be classed and called ‘causeless’. However, both of these things exist solely because of ‘the other’. See, if one of them did not exist, then ‘the other’ would literally not exist. So, in this sense, it could be said and argued that ‘each’ ‘causes’ ‘the other’ existence.
Which, by the way, ALL of this also can be expanded on, elaborated on, and gone into with far finer detail, with very simple and easy explanations that make perfect sense, which, in turn, makes understanding ALL of this very simple and easy, also.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390/20 "2026-10-14T22:12:29Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> > [@pseudoai](#):
> >
> > That’s why it makes more sense to ask for the cause, not for something prior. You can see that you can ask for a cause of the universe even if there is no ‘first’ time - as a ‘circle’, for example
>
> No, a cause is again a prior event on a line. Time that is a circle (circular) doesn’t need a cause.
But the word ‘time’ just refers to the measuring of, or to, the duration between ‘perceived’ events.
There is no actual physical thing as ‘time’, itself.
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-metaphysical-framework-for-the-cause-of-everything/86390.md?page=2)