Dear Ryan, you wrote:
I don't necessary think it is necessary for a first cause to exist, and even if there was, adding a creator agent not only doesn't actually answer the question, it just raises the obvious next one: what cause the creator? How can an initial action happen with no preceding cause?
I really do see only one destination to this infinity of paths: an ultimately eternal and infinite meta-existence, everything in the most literal sense. Perhaps it is as infinite in layers as it is in duration. It's not a satisfying answer, because it can never be explained... but neither can an ultimate first cause, and that still leaves that eternity to account for. Best to not even bother with the idea.
I would answer the question in the first paragraph with restating the meaning of a prime mover or an unmoved mover. Such an agent is self- contained in this classical argument. Because by definition prime means 'the first', there is no need to explain a cause for this agent. The assumption is that this Prime mover is an eternal entity. It is not an action itself but the ultimate cause of all action.
As for your final conclusion that the universe can be explained (though without satisfaction) by positing an eternal existence of all matter, this was the position taken by Democritus but challenged by Aristotle. The latter could not accept that all things have been in motion from eternity and so cognized an agent for the initial action, i.e., the Prime Mover.
As far as I can see, both are possible. I can conceive of an eternal prime being that lends its eternal prime essence to be infinitely permuted into infinite states that are governed by natural laws that emanate from the nature of the eternal prime matter itself. Such matter would and should reflect the perfect wisdom and beauty of its origin and that is exactly what we seem to observe all about us. We see states of matter in constant change but we also see that though the matter changes, it does not cease to be. (Law of conservation of matter/mass) Wherever we look in the natural world, we see beauty and wisdom in every form and every state of being.
Anyway, I find this explanation very much more satisfying and acceptable than an atheistic one that gives no account for the problem of how things began to move in this universe of constant motion.
Finally, it is not acceptable advise to a philosopher to suggest that because a particular idea is difficult to understand that it is best to not think about it. This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.
I don't necessary think it is necessary for a first cause to exist, and even if there was, adding a creator agent not only doesn't actually answer the question, it just raises the obvious next one: what cause the creator? How can an initial action happen with no preceding cause?
I really do see only one destination to this infinity of paths: an ultimately eternal and infinite meta-existence, everything in the most literal sense. Perhaps it is as infinite in layers as it is in duration. It's not a satisfying answer, because it can never be explained... but neither can an ultimate first cause, and that still leaves that eternity to account for. Best to not even bother with the idea.
I would answer the question in the first paragraph with restating the meaning of a prime mover or an unmoved mover. Such an agent is self- contained in this classical argument. Because by definition prime means 'the first', there is no need to explain a cause for this agent. The assumption is that this Prime mover is an eternal entity. It is not an action itself but the ultimate cause of all action.
As for your final conclusion that the universe can be explained (though without satisfaction) by positing an eternal existence of all matter, this was the position taken by Democritus but challenged by Aristotle. The latter could not accept that all things have been in motion from eternity and so cognized an agent for the initial action, i.e., the Prime Mover.
As far as I can see, both are possible. I can conceive of an eternal prime being that lends its eternal prime essence to be infinitely permuted into infinite states that are governed by natural laws that emanate from the nature of the eternal prime matter itself. Such matter would and should reflect the perfect wisdom and beauty of its origin and that is exactly what we seem to observe all about us. We see states of matter in constant change but we also see that though the matter changes, it does not cease to be. (Law of conservation of matter/mass) Wherever we look in the natural world, we see beauty and wisdom in every form and every state of being.
Anyway, I find this explanation very much more satisfying and acceptable than an atheistic one that gives no account for the problem of how things began to move in this universe of constant motion.
Finally, it is not acceptable advise to a philosopher to suggest that because a particular idea is difficult to understand that it is best to not think about it. This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.
