Eternity (Origins)

by David Turell , Thursday, November 21, 2013, 15:36 (4018 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We certainly can't know what the first cause is, which does indeed mean we can only make suggestions. You seem to be saying that St Thomas's suggestion is the only reasonable one, any other is "amorphous" (what could be more amorphous than your God?), and you won't consider it! Why is it unreasonable to suggest that throughout the "for ever and ever and ever" past there might have been countless other universes, since we know that the first cause has produced this one? -Because you are inventing suppostions. Stick only to what we know and then look back for what might be attributed to the result. Don't invent other results. It only confuses philosophic debate.
 
> 
> dhw; Not so. Folk like Dawkins believe that our universe is the result of natural laws that govern matter, there is no universal intelligence, and eventually the mysteries of life and consciousness will be explained by materialism. They can argue that an infinite number of universes going back through eternity is bound eventually to produce one that will harbour life (see next comment for continuation).-Yes, they can bet on chance and have their on conclusions as to origin but infinite preceding universes is like adding suppostions like the multiverse, or Steinhardt's bouncing baby, for which he admits it is a thought full of holes:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029402.900-no-need-for-inflation-if-cosmos-was-a-bouncing-baby.html#.UmhXdjnn_cs-> 
> dhw: "First cause" explains nothing. I see no difference between this "somehow" and the "somehow" whereby intelligence evolved within materials. They are equally "amorphous". But if we are to go purely by "what we see exists", we can only go by life itself, which clearly shows materials cooperating to create ever greater complexity. We do not see a universal intelligence ... we only see individual intelligences. Were they inserted divinely from outside, or did they evolve naturally from inside? I don't think we can answer that, and so ... if I may echo you ... I can go no further.-If you accept Aristotle's cause and effect, then there is a chain of contingency. If you reject the concept, then you have chosen to go back to chance. You can't have both ways. As for evolving intelligence, this is just as mysterious as speciation, for which we have no answer. Species are there, so we know it happened. Intelligence is there, but there is no existing theory that says it evolved. That is the Wilsonian theory. Intelligence must involve information. Where did the informtion come from? Same old question. It must be supplied by intelligence. First cause must have had intelligence with information. I can't excape that reasoning.