You mean that if a "first cause" was ever found then it could only explain everything else and not itself? And therefore since itself is part of the universe too (i.e - the first part) then the whole universe can't ultimately be explained?
If the "first cause" can't be explained then the whole universe cannot be ultimately explained because the "first cause" is part of the universe.
Now if you are saying then that then I'm sure I agree. How can the "first cause" possibly explained? Its self explanatory. It just exists - something had to exist first as the "first cause" - unless you are going with the totally infinite regress idea or something.
I would think though that when scientists talk of a "first cause" as an ultimate explanation they mean for everything else and not for itself right? Other than it simply being the first thing that was?
That would be like asking for a POSITIVE NUMBER before 0 wouldn't it?
EvF
If the "first cause" can't be explained then the whole universe cannot be ultimately explained because the "first cause" is part of the universe.
Now if you are saying then that then I'm sure I agree. How can the "first cause" possibly explained? Its self explanatory. It just exists - something had to exist first as the "first cause" - unless you are going with the totally infinite regress idea or something.
I would think though that when scientists talk of a "first cause" as an ultimate explanation they mean for everything else and not for itself right? Other than it simply being the first thing that was?
That would be like asking for a POSITIVE NUMBER before 0 wouldn't it?
EvF
