The idea of a "cause without a cause" is important in philosophy of religion. It is used in several demonstrations for the existence of God. If I had asked you about "God" in question 2, for example, you should have to place it in the category of "uncaused events." (according to Aristotle and nearly all of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers).
One argument looks like this:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. If we trace back from effect to cause, effect to cause, backward in time, we need to find at least one cause that was not itself caused. There has to be a "first cause."
3. If the chain of effects to causes is infinite, then the universe could not exist, because it would have never started ...
4. If the chain of causes to effects is infinite, then we could not be "at this time," because it would have taken an infinite amount of time before we could arrive at this moment ...
5. Therefore, there must be at least one event that caused a second event, but itself was never caused by a prior event. That event we call "God." (Summarizing one argument from Thomas Aquinas)
The idea here is that an INFINITE REGRESS is impossible. (Some will later argue, suggesting there is no reason why there might not, in fact, be an infinite regress to account for the universe... Save that thought for now.)
A. What do you think of an argument that asserts that "everything has a cause," but also at least one thing "causes everything but is not caused by anything"?
B. Even so, suppose for a moment that this argument is valid and sound, what does this say about the possibility of there being freedom in the universe?
Respond in 3 to 4 sentences to both parts of the question.