Is this a valid argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.


2. A causal loop cannot exist.


3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


4. Therefore, a first cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.





If not, then what is the shortcoming?





If so, what is the first cause?|||Your argument fails at #1, because Quantum Mechanics shows that events and particles happen with no cause. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question (as is often done) solves nothing. It just stops you from asking more questions.





There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy -- via natural processes.





I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”





For more, watch the video at the link - "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.





"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."


— Isaac Asimov


--|||No, it isn't valid. Even if the premises are correct, the conclusion does not follow from them. For example, one could postulate an infinite number of "uncaused causes" and still be well within the confines of the premises.





In addition to being invalid, you haven't supported any of the premises. You've just asserted them.|||Shortcoming is step 1. It is an unwarranted assumption.|||Greetings,





Yes. I would say that it is, maybe, only disagreeing slightly with number 3.|||No





2 and 3 have not been proven