1. nature demands an explanation
2. a ‘natural’ explanation of nature… isn’t.
|
||||||
3 comments to explaining natureLeave a Reply |
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 | Log in | | All Rights Reserved |
||||||
like or dislike:
0 
0
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?
Simon[quote...] [reply...]
like or dislike:
0 
0
The non-existing ‘existing’, non-creating ‘creating’, non-thing ‘thing.
Simon[quote...] [reply...]
like or dislike:
0 
0
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.
Dale[quote...] [reply...]