If the universe is eternal, then there is no necessity for an ultimate mover or a creator demiurge because everything in the universe has always existed and is transforming and moving in accordance with the laws of physics. But the universe cannot be eternal because it does not contain any component that does not undergo transformation. From common sense experience we know that all things which undergo transformation are either material or mental—they have a beginning and an end. If everything in the universe is undergoing transformation, then eternality cannot be attributed to the universe as a whole. The universe must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, then it implies that there is a creator.
How do you go from your knowledge of "all things which undergo transformation" to "all things that exist (of course with those that did exist and will exist)"?
In knowing that the things that you know are temporally delimited, how do you find grounds to make the statement that even the things you don't know must also be temporally delimited?
In other words, how do you know, given your de-limited knowledge, that every thing in existence---including those which you don't know---must have a beginning and an end?
And, in fact, more sharply, this question: How do you know that among the things you do know, there is no evidence that there are some aspects to existence which have neither beginning nor end? ... Aether, dear, the good old aether! ... For that matter, even as special a science as physics has conservation laws---for changes. But they are derived from, and apply, not only to the notion of change but also of changeless-ness. And, ultimately, they make reference not only to spatio-temporally distinguishable objects, but also the one all-pervading object i.e. the aether.
PS: Hint: Try something different.
Post a Comment