Lovely question!

A cause is something that makes something happen, it basically causes a reaction. The reaction to this cause is called and effect and is the result of a cause. Due to the intertwined relationship given in these definitions an effect must have a cause. Even if we just see the effect and we do not see the cause, or we cannot explain it, there must still be a cause. Cause and effect are like actions and reactions, several causes can form one event or one effect, each cause will perhaps have the same effect but the effect will have several distinct causes. I am really trying to think of a situation where there would be no cause but I am having difficulty, however it probably applies to higher questions such as why are we here or if you believe in creationism, what caused the "Big Bang" ... maybe nothing? We will most likely never know. But even if the answer is that nothing caused something, wouldn't that in itself be a cause?

yes

Ah, classic physics. You would have heard phrases like

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
( Law of Conservation of Energy )

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
( Newton's Third Law of Motion )

What you are asking is : Can something happen that was not caused by something?
And following the laws above, no, it can't.

We might not know why it happened but some force or energy was involved. The reaction is the effect that we have seen. The cause may yet be determined.

for every cause their always going to an effect cus their wasn't one how u going to know a cause happen. for sample what goes up most come down. cause up effect in coming down so yes every cause has an effect

Although this sounds like a simple physics question, it's really a philosophical puzzle. Surprisingly, the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume said no. What Hume pointed out was that we cannot really see the cause/effect relationship. All we really do is have a habit of seeing one thing (someone's foot striking a ball) and then another (the ball flying off in a certain direction) and calling that cause and effect. In other words, Hume said that cause and effect was really just a psychological association.

Most people reject Hume's skepticism, but do we have good reasons for doing so? There are a lot of times when we think event E is the cause of result R, but we are often mistaken. For instance, this is the mistake that most astronomers accuse astrologers of making. In critical thinking we say that correlation does not imply causation. We must show how event E is the actual cause of result R. But this is exactly what Hume claims we cannot do. All we can do, according to Hume, is show that there have been many times in the past when result R was preceded by event E.

However, Humean skepticism does not necessarily mean that there are no causes. Does an effect always have a cause? Science assumes that the answer is yes, and all scientific investigation is an attempt to find the cause or causes of events. But what many scientists may not realize is that this yes answer is a metaphysical presupposition. However, science that is based on this assumption has been extremely fruitful. So we might say, from a practical and probabilistic perspective, we have to say that yes, all events have causes. So far, no event has been found that did not have a cause. I have not discussed all of the relevant issues involved in this question (such as the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature, and necessary connection, etc.), but we can see that this apparently simple questions raises some very complex issues.