On Oct 5, 10:56=A0am, Louis Epstein <l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> All details can be legitimately questioned and investigated,
> but to deny the necessity of an Infinitely First Cause is
> wholly insane.
And you've said the same thing in various different ways in this
thread, but can you prove that assertion without invoking it as part
of the proof?
I do tend to agree, as it happens - at least in part - but the past
103 years of physics have taught us again and again that common sense
cannot be trusted in matters of physics and cosmology because it is
routinely flouted by the universe. This is not of itself an argument
for denying First Cause, but it does constitute an entirely rational
basis for not taking it for granted and for expecting it, at the very
least, to come with a twist.
We already know, for example, that First Cause cannot be "first" in
the chronological sense because time itself is a post-Big-Bang
property of the universe. Remove the universe and you remove any
notion of before and after, leaving First Cause in a certain amount of
ontological difficulty. There are ways around this, but don't expect
First Cause to be first, and don't expect it to be a "cause",
either...
--
Mike.
|
