Question

Explanations usually involve the notion of time. When we have an explanation for why the earth is round, we think of a mechanism or process that caused the earth to be round. But this involves time and by extension implies that the thing we are trying to explain has a beginning.

But say that thing has no beginning, such as a posited eternal universe or an eternal god. What would an explanation of these entities look like?

Positing an eternal entity seems to almost be a trick of sorts. It seems to escape the need for explanation in terms of the usual sense. But at the same time, it does seem intuitive that asserting an eternal entity shouldn’t come without consequence. How would then one show that asserting this is unreasonable or requires explanation?

Answer 1

Philosophical discussions about the nature of eternal entities involve examining the need for an origin and the concept of a First Cause, contrasting with the idea of an eternal cosmos. Aristotle's position on the necessity for a First Mover is counterbalanced by cosmological models suggesting a cyclic universe with no beginning. The burden of proof for explaining such phenomena rests on the claimants, requiring evidence and adherence to logical consistency.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question explores the nature of explanations for entities deemed eternal, such as the universe or a deity. It delves into the philosophical inquiry of an eternal entity necessitating an origin, a topic that presents a classic challenge within metaphysical and cosmological arguments.

Aristotle's conception of a necessary First Cause or Unmoved Mover aimed to provide a foundational explanation for the universe, rejecting an infinite regression of causes. Conversely, other perspectives suggest that the universe could be a cyclical process with no discernable beginning, aligning with certain Eastern philosophies and the notion of an eternal cosmos.

Modern scientific theories, such as the Big Bang, propose a temporal beginning, though not without philosophical contentions about causality and the nature of time. The burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of an uncaused or necessary entity. Explanations must adhere strictly to evidence and reason, fitting best with observable facts, and be well-supported by logical claims.