HOW COULD THE UNIVERSE COME FROM NOTHING? If we want to say the universe commenced from nothing, how can we first identify what nothing is? How can we delineate and epitomize nothingness if it has no traits or qualities? How can nothingness exist if it is nothing? Nothingness is a word. If it is a word then it becomes an idea in the mind irrespective of its obscurity. If it is an idea then it can arguably be something. We are enabled to mention about it because we can somewhat conceptualize it. Though we cannot satisfactorily explain it, we feel the urge to at least talk about it as we try to attach it to other things that we want to distinguish as possessing it. When we think and mention of nothingness, we tend to envisage a sort of blackness. Blackness is something or an aspect of something. So, if nothing is something and the universe was created ex nihilo, then the universe was still created from something that exists as the universe’s cause. So, the universe has a predecessor. What then created the nothingness if it is something and all things in existence must have causes? Dissatisfied with nothingness being the ultimate predecessor and cause of the universe, because nothingness as a cause is unacceptable, a person might ask about the cause for the nothingness. Asking about a cause for the nothingness leads the mind into finding a paucity of valid propositions for formulating sound premises to conclude about the nothingness having a cause. The nothingness must be causeless. Still, other people are dissatisfied with the nothingness being causeless and the absurdity of the nothingness will lead the mind to think about our universe having an infinite causal regress instead or that the universe with its tangibility always existed in perpetuity backwards. Albeit, paradoxically, because an infinite causal regress is immeasurable for the human intellect to analyze, perpetuity backwards (which essentially is also causeless) is equally absurd as the same causelessness of nothingness. Accordingly, we should be led to believe that everything cannot be scientifically reducible to having a beginning even though it should be reducible to having a beginning to enable us to comprehend the universe and existence. The human mind wants to think of this causelessness, nothingness and infinite causal regress or eternal tangibility in backward time as being outlandish, because they each cannot be simultaneously true. Albeit, paradoxically, they are! All of existence is outlandish, but still the mind cannot accept this. So, there must have been a beginning, we like to say. As creationists and theists like to believe, God began everything as He was also the beginning. But then atheists may want to change the initial question asking: why was there God instead of nothing? Many philosophers and cosmologists would like to end this thought with saying it “just is.” The Nothing cannot be asked about. Atheists and theists both are demanding to win this war against the other. Why can they both not see there may be a possible stalemate instead? Can we end with speculating or postulating that the Nothing was God and He/She/It still exists in the nothing? Theoretically, the Nothing which was or included God is our First Cause. As everything must have a cause, God also must have a cause while being the uncaused First Cause. So, the Nothing begat God as God begat the Nothing as the Nothing begat God ad infinitum which has God and the Nothing intertwined as two uncaused First Causes.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:00:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015