Categories philosophy science explaining nature Post author By Dale Post date September 3, 2009 3 Comments on explaining nature 1. nature demands an explanation 2. a ‘natural’ explanation of nature… isn’t. Share this:FacebookTwitterWhatsAppTumblrEmailPinterest Tags philosophy ← thanks ian… → is nature ‘natural’? 3 replies on “explaining nature” This might seem all very well, until you reaslise that the explanation for nature needs an explanation….. But we’ve had this conversation before, Dale, no? The non-existing ‘existing’, non-creating ‘creating’, non-thing ‘thing. Simon, Yes, these are all regresses, whether causal (what caused the first ’cause’ [which by the way, ignores the word “first”]), or explanatory (what explains the explanation…), or creative (what created the creator). A half-moment of reflection reveals that these infinite regresses all point to an infinite/final/ultimate end/source (source of all causation; source of explanation; source of creativity). Unless you’re wanting to play the turtle-standing-on-another-turtle-standing-on-another… game? ;) In sum, infinite regresses point to an infinite source. Comments are closed.