So there are all lots of possibilities for how many first causes there are. But let's say for the sake of argument again, that it turned out there was only a single first cause, rather than none or many... a single moment in time where everything began, and you could deterministically evolve the universe from that point onward, predicting every future event from that first event.
Even if that is the case, there's absolutely no reason why that first cause would have to be an intelligent being--it could simply be a singularity of spacetime, a big explosion of zero entropy from which everything else came out of, and after which entropy started increasing and things started getting more disorganized.
Indeed, I find that a far more deeply satisfying and elegant explanation for how things began than that there was some anthropomorphic intelligence that waved his hand and said "let there be light". Adding an extra first cause before the real first cause, with the stipulation that the extra first cause be an intelligent creature... is adding an unnecessary and ugly extra feature to an otherwise beautiful theory.
The reason why I initially mentioned the lack of a distinction between inanimate and animate things is because one of the strangest parts of Aristotle's argument to me... is that he would assume that whatever the first cause was, it had to be animate. It could have just as well been inanimate, in fact that would make a great deal more sense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
First Mover
Date: 2010-12-04 06:26 pm (UTC)Even if that is the case, there's absolutely no reason why that first cause would have to be an intelligent being--it could simply be a singularity of spacetime, a big explosion of zero entropy from which everything else came out of, and after which entropy started increasing and things started getting more disorganized.
Indeed, I find that a far more deeply satisfying and elegant explanation for how things began than that there was some anthropomorphic intelligence that waved his hand and said "let there be light". Adding an extra first cause before the real first cause, with the stipulation that the extra first cause be an intelligent creature... is adding an unnecessary and ugly extra feature to an otherwise beautiful theory.
The reason why I initially mentioned the lack of a distinction between inanimate and animate things is because one of the strangest parts of Aristotle's argument to me... is that he would assume that whatever the first cause was, it had to be animate. It could have just as well been inanimate, in fact that would make a great deal more sense.