This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

It could loop back on itself, even, where the "last" cause links with the "first" effect, and just spins around again and again. The whole notion of causality could break down once we leave our temporal context, and we have no evidence that time is anything but a property of *our* universe. What the situation of our universe is to any outside entities (if they exist at all) is beyond our knowing.

Or maybe there is a first cause. I can't disprove it. The key here is that we don't know. There is no philosophical argument (that I've heard) that demonstrates that any of these arguments is impossible. So long as none are disproven, and there is no evidence (maybe permanently) the only logical course is to profess our ignorance.

And, of course, even if there was a first cause, that says nothing about what it is. So it makes no sense whatsoever as an argument for Intelligent Design.

-Jester
[right][snapback]98536[/snapback][/right]

About your reality chain loop: Wouldn't the chain/loop be when the last effect links back to the first cause? Your order seems inverted to me.

"The only logical course is to profess ignorance?" I disagree. A logical course is to profess ignorance. Another is to ask hypothetical questions in the attempts to find an answer, or part of an answer. PS: The "only logical answer" structure is well used by the ICR. I don't expect you'd want to associate your comments on this topic to their reasoning by use of a similar fallacy.

"No sense whatsoever?" I'll offer that you overstate your case. If there is a first cause, it may be a comprehensible (to our puny human brains) agency, or it may not. Within the subset of comprehensible agencies are various gods, which include God, and other ultimate causation events or conditions. Of course, as soon as one assumes God to be comprehensible, (to what degree by our puny human brains?) the door is opened to "how much of the elephant can the blind man describe?" This takes us back to of philosophy, and metaphysics. If ID does not belong in the science class, I'll offer that in an appeal to rigor Darwin and Evolution need to be presented warts and all. That it is taught as Truth is mildly fraudulent, though not enough to throw it out, nor to write it off as junk science. It's limitations need to be presented "up front."

Then again, quite a bit of history taught in our schools is more story than history. As history is not a hard science -- since it is only reproducible by those unwilling to learn from it ;) -- it has little place in this thread's conversation other than as a scholastic subject whose "teaching" is flawed.

Occhi