First Cause thinking as a lack of imagination

I doubt anyone would argue with the idea that the fact we can't imagine how something could be true doesn't make it false.  I can't imagine how the resurrection of Jesus could be true, but lots of people apparently can, so I would not use that argument.  So also when I was three I couldn't imagine that people could live on the other side of the world (the "antipode").  Now that I live there I still sometimes think about falling off.

There are at least two reasons why something we can't imagine how it could be true, could, in spite of our notions, still be true anyway.  These are lack of imagination and ignorance, usually together.

Thus, "I can't imagine how a monkey could become a man."  Well, of course monkeys can't become men (nor can song-and-dance Orangs), but we know what is meant by the expression.  People who say that almost always have a religious motive, not a rational motive, but ignoring that, the problem is ignorance of biology (huge ignorance) and lack of imagination, in this example almost certainly forced, willful, failure to use imagination.

My favorite is that the universe could not have caused itself therefore God must have caused it.  Besides the obvious response that if everything must have a cause, then what caused God -- readily enough answered by asserting that God is the one thing that does not need a cause.  Well, then, why not the universe not needing a cause either?

The real problem is inability to see that causation is an illusion brought on by the statistical fact that the random events, the things that happen without a cause, happen at the quantum level and smaller, and by the time it reaches us the law of large numbers makes the odds against something happening "uncaused" so small as to be out of the question.

Think about our saying one thing "caused" another.  Event A happens and then event B happens.  Is there a real connection between them or is it just in our heads?  We all know that often we misidentify "causes" and that it is some third thing causing A and B, or maybe it is just a statistical fluke.  Still, there is a reality that some things do seem to cause others, although if we study them closely we find we can break down each event into sub-causes and sub-sub-causes, smaller and smaller, so at root it is statistical -- just that the odds are so small that we will never see an exception.

If there were true causation, then there would be magic.  What would be the connection between two causally linked events other than magic.  As it is we can apply physics or some other science to break down the causations or we can study many occurrences to come to a statistical confirmation, but we don't really think one object reaches out with invisible hands in some way to make another happen, do we?

That is not to say that it could not be God active at the quantum level deciding each event rather than randomness, but then all God would be is a random number generator.  This is the problem with Aquinas and all those who so readily and eagerly follow him.  Even though he broke the idea down into unnecessary pieces, I guess to make the argument seem stronger, all it is is a statement that God had to be the first cause or the first mover or whatever because I lack the knowledge and imagination necessary to see otherwise.