[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[Ham Priday]

Hi Will --



> I believe what you write is only one way to look at it.
>
> My observations of the universe is that the striking
> aspect of it, is the presence of circular motion. This
> circular motion is also seen as a wave since the same
> trigonometry applies. A wave goes through a cycle of
> crest and trough. A standing wave has no beginning
> and no end. If one were to imagine time as an endless
> cycle it would have no beginning or end, and the
> concept of infinity would become much more manageable.

However you analogize existence - whether as an infinite line, an endless 
circle, or a standing wave - its primary characteristic is change and 
difference perceived subjectively.  The perception is that everything comes 
into being (is "created") at some point in time, including the universe 
itself.  This precept has been intellectualized as the law of cause and 
effect.

> If one applies logic, one cannot go endlessly back
> in time, or else it would be impossible for this present
> time to ever arrive (kind of a Zeno paradox). Physicists
> claim (to get out of this) that time began at
> a big bang. I'm not sure which is easier to accept, that
> time just began or that time is circular.

Collecting experiential data and constructing physical theories from them 
will not help us understand the ontogeny of existence.  This is the 
philosopher's dilemma.  Only when we get beyond cause-and-effect and 
space/time differentiation can we posit an all-encompassing "uncreated 
source".

> I'm not sure if I accept the notion that everything has a
> beginning, even with regard to our self-awareness. But
> that is a topic for another forum. It seems that Williams'
> analogy about the universe being a self contained set,
> also spells a dilemma for philosophy. This analogy is an
> attempt to get outside that set, which then results in an ever
> increasing number of sets, that one has to get out of.
> In fact getting beyond these sets is a set.

An "ever-increasing number of sets", like the infinite regression of causes, 
is a fallacy of existential thinking.  Metaphysical logic is not restricted 
to the parameters of fintude.  Thus, there is no logical reason to impute a 
"beginning", an "end", change or process to the uncreated source.

> Since it appears that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity)
> are also "evolving", and indeed time is also changing.  Biology changes
> in time to the changes of the planet, which changes in time to the
> changing forces, which change in time to time. All this change is
> simply an endless dance, and what a waltz it is.
>
> This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see. Once one
> becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea
> of a beginning kind of loses its importance. Rather than directional
> evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless
> transformation.

Again, you are describing physical reality - the world of appearances.  So 
long as you hold to the precepts of cause-and-effect, you will be chasing 
your tail and will never arrive at a logical solution.  Only metaphysics can 
free us from the limitations and conditions of physical existence. 
Metaphysical theories are not bound to relational precepts, and neither is 
the uncreated source.  That's why I find more "satisfaction" and meaning in 
metaphysical ontogeny.

Thanks, Will.

Essentially yours,
Ham