| | Excerpts from my website:
http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com
Either the phenomenon of existence is the result of cause and effect (creation) or it is not.
"It is" implies Creation ex Nihilo
If everything that exists was created and nothing existed prior to creation, then space, itself, must once have been absent until some ancient incipient event precipitated the manifestation of the Universe and all of its inhabitants. Any causative progenitor must be ruled out since it would both violate the second requisite of the premise and require any precursor to be the descendent of an earlier predecessor similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any causative approach to the enigma of existence either implies no logical beginning or it implies an inexplicable spontaneous source not derived from causation - a source that would not only violate the first requisite but would also render the entire premise of cosmic genesis totally moot, for if anything could exist without creation, why couldn't everything else?
When the tenets of logic invalidate your argument, you should avoid them entirely, so there are those who would suggest whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to logic or the laws of physics. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the Universe in a miraculous act of divine inspiration. Contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of a spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today. Both hypotheses are equally specious. Once the laws of nature are repealed anything is possible, even the absurd; and if we permit even one exception to those laws, why should we expect the rest of the cosmos to abide by them? You may freely choose to suspend simple logic in favor of whichever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to pretend your argument is rational.
So, why does something exist rather than nothing?
AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
It's a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. At first you might consider the premise to be obvious and inconsequential, but in reality, its deeper significance categorically refutes both the mythology of Genesis and the mathology of Big Bang.
If being is necessary in order for change to occur, then existence is the source of cause and effect and not the result of it. Cause and effect is derived from, thus subordinate to, the more basic phenomenon of being, and no phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative.
It doesn't take an Einstein or Hawking to recognize the obvious, all it takes is an unbiased perspective; thinking not outside the box nor inside the box, but discarding the box entirely. This isn't rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in math, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it. It's simple basic common sense - something contempory scholars seem to shun when it threatens the funding of expensive research to determine the "size and age" of an infinite and eternal Universe. In the ivory tower of academia, multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into entropy death are where the real money is (with some strings attached). Beautiful equations can describe fantasy as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophistocated branes.
"It is not" implies Existence ex Nihilo
If existence is the source of cause and effect and cause and effect is governed by fundamental laws of nature called principles, doesn't it logically follow that the key which unlocks the enigma of existence would be a principle instead of a process? If we examine the nature of change, one simple prevailing dynamic emerges; a ubiquitous paradigm found at the heart and soul of every equation, a familiar axiom universally known and accepted. Unfortunately, the significance of this principle has been ignored since the inception of scientific inquiry and, ironically, it continues to remain concealed - hidden in plain sight.
More later
THoR
|
|
