Origins of the Universe. A Philosophical Perspective — by John Anning

Logical Logic, Reasons for Reason, and Rationale for Rationality

Logic, Reason, and Rationality
Before beginning, it must be pointed out that when discussing matters of a philosophical nature, there are certain "Laws of Logic" or "Rules of Reason", so to speak, that must be maintained. If we are to be engaged in any rational discussion, we must adhere to the ground rules of reason, lest our discussion be guilty of making no sense at all. I would like to briefly mention one such rule of reason before progressing any further.

"Law of Self Contradiction"
This law of reason states that nothing can "Be" and "Not Be" at the same time and in the same relationship. It states that nothing can be "True" and "False" at the same time and in the same relationship. To violate the "Law of Self Contradiction" (also known as the "Law of Contradiction") is to flee from rationality and violate reason itself.

---

To Tell The Truth

Truth (Part I) — Relative or Absolute?
It may be argued by some, that "truth" is only "relative" and not "absolute" in accounting for what is. Those who are persuaded in the "relative" position regarding truth, would argue that "there is no absolute truth" In other words, they would argue that truth can be different for one person than for another. It is a philosophical system of belief that nothing is or can be absolute and that everything is only relative to one's perspective.

If you were to ask someone who prescribes to the view that there is no absolute truth, if this can be absolutely true, then they would have to respond by either saying no (contradicting themselves about no absolute truth) demonstrated that there own argument cannot be a valid one based on their own definition of truth that lacks any absoluteness, or they would have to answer yes (contradicting themselves) by declaring that the nonexistence of absolute truth is absolute. Either way, it's a contradiction and reckless reasoning.

Truth (Part II) — Absolutely No Absolutes?
This gets a little tricky, but consider this; If truth is only relative and not absolute, then the truth of this philosophy is not absolute and therefore subject to suspicion. Therefore, absolute truth is indeed possible, since relative truth cannot be absolute. But how can can there be absolute truth if nothing is absolute? And how can there be relative truth absolutely, if nothing is absolute? So, if nothing is absolute, then there can be no relative or absolute truth absolutely. But if nothing is absolute, then this cannot be true either because nothing is absolute! As you can see, a philosophy of relative truth stops us cold at reasoning at all. Nothing creative or constructive regarding intellectual debate can ever be accomplished with a relative-truth mind set. What would be the point engaging in any debate without absolutes?

Truth (Part III) — Is Relative Truth Absolute?
In reality, a philosophy of relative truth is a philosophy of self—contradiction. To reason that "relative truth is absolute" is a contradiction in terms and therefore an argument against itself. Something cannot be "true" and "not true" at the same time and in the same relationship for reasons explained earlier. If truth is defined as something that "may", or "may not" be, then the word truth has been stripped of any meaning or relevancy in even using the word to describe anything that is, or is not.

True or False? — But not Both!
I have not even mentioned the word "False" here, and will not belabor the point much further other than to say that if truth is absolute, then falsification is absolute. Something is either true or false, but not both at the same time and in the same relationship. If something is true, then it cannot be false; If something is false, then it cannot be true. Otherwise, these words have no meaning, or inverse relationship with one another, and again, debating anything would be a fools game without absolutes. So, accepting that truth and error are absolute, we can continue to reason together with meaning and purpose.

---

Here's Thinking of You

I Think I Can Think, I Think
Some may find it a little unsettling to have someone else define for them how to properly think. After all, what could be more simple than thinking and why should someone else tell us how to do it? But let me point out that reckless thought or self-seeking logic can be devastating to anyone honestly seeking truth or eliminating error in their quest to discover "what is and what is not". We are all philosophers capable of some degree of independent thought, but this does not mean that we are all good philosophers uncovering absolute truth necessary for getting answers to our heart's yearnings or for comfort founded in truth. Sometimes, it is good to get some direction in organized thinking, lest we become overly biased in our own subjective opinions without considering the bigger picture.

"Free Thinkers" Are Not As Free In Their Thinking As They Think
Some have declared themselves as being "Free Thinkers" because they have rebuked theological viewpoints regarding the nature and origins of the universe. But I find that none of us can truly be "Free" in our thinking, due to the presuppositions and bias that have been installed in us by our circumstances, acquaintances, media exposure, institutional teachings, traditions, and last but not least, pride. We cannot be absolutely free in our thinking because we are not absolutely free in our being. We have many limitations and obstacles. Unfortunately, we are more biased than we would like to admit, so being free in our rationale is more about wishful thinking than a reality. However, some of our presuppositions and bias can be put in check if we can be honest and careful in our thinking, especially if we are willing to admit that perhaps we have been wrong in assuming certain things that we have believed in the past. Plato and Socrates understood this as well and spent their lives trying to liberate themselves from personal bias using systems of logic and rationality.

Re-examine Your Thinking And Why You Believe What You Believe
Logic, by means of abstract or deductive reasoning, will never solve all the mysteries of the universe, but it can be very beneficial, at least, in eliminating some of the common misconceptions about certain ideas that we have maintained and taken for granted without closer examination. At some point in our lives, I think it prudent to re-examine what we believe about anything and re-discover why we believe it. It is reassuring to know that our coveted conclusions about truth can be proofed-out rationally, whether its source is Scriptural, truly scientific, etc., instead of based on what someone else smarter than us told us is truth according to their examinations and convictions. Question and test everything, including what I am writing!!

---

Important Question:

If there were a ever time when absolutely nothing existed, what would we have now?

If there were ever a time when absolutely nothing existed; no space, no molecules, no light, no gravity, not a hint of anything, absolutely nothing, what would we have now?

Absolutely nothing!

How can we know this rationally?

We know this because of a fundamental and inescapable law of reason: "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" - "From Nothing, Nothing Comes". To violate this fundamental law of reason is to violate all truth as we know it. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, (self created) it would have to be, before it is. In other words, it would have to be, and not be, at the same time and in the same relationship. This is absurd reason at best, and violates the law of self-contradiction at worse! Nothing can "be" and "not be" at the same time and in the same relationship. Nothing!!

Therefore, if something exists now, then something has always existed-—It is eternal. It has the necessary power within itself to have always existed and to be. In other words, if something exists now, then something exists necessarily-—it had to always exist—It could not, not be! It would have no point of origin because it has always existed.

Like it or not, SOMETHING OUT THERE IS ETERNAL!
I wanted to demonstrate this point of reason before continuing, because it is crucial at every point of a philosophical debate to understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable thinking. Of course, there is no "law" against unreasonable thinking, but unreasonable thinking never lends itself to revealing truth that has its basis in absolutes, rather than personal preference, and in reason, rather than in randomness.

---

Accounting For The Existence Of The Universe

There are three and only three scenarios to consider, when accounting for the existence of the universe:

These three scenarios cover EVERY possible theory and explanation when accounting for the existence of the universe. Let's examine each one.


(1) The Universe is Self Created (Ex Nihilo - From Nothing) ?

Did the Universe Create Itself?
I opened up this page with a rational explanation of why nothing can create itself Ex Nihilo (from nothing), but for the sake of review, and for expansion of the point, I will press on.

The idea behind the theory of a "self-created" universe, is that it is assumed at one point in time past, absolutely nothing existed, and then in an instant, or in some measure of time, the universe, or at least the building material necessary for the universe, suddenly and mysteriously appeared from nowhere and from nothingness. Wow, this is quite a feat! As discussed earlier, nothing can pull off a feat of this magnitude. Remember, that for something to create itself, it must be, and not be, at the same time and in the same relationship. It would be called on to bring itself into existence before it is. How is this possible? By sheer reason, it is not possible. Again, for something to create itself, it must be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a gross and preposterous contradiction of all things regarding a reasonable and rational explanation. Nothing can create itself, not even God can pull this one off!

Did Time and Chance Play a Role?
Someone may argue, that given enough "Time" and "Chance", that anything can happen, even self creation. I would like to briefly explore this notion because I think it is important to understand just what influence "Time" or "Chance" might have on anything.

What is time?
Time is a word. Time is ONLY a word, used to express an abstract idea of motion in the passage of events that make up our lives. Time, regardless of what science fiction writers would have us believe, is NOT another dimension. There are only three dimensions in the physical, cosmological world; height, width and depth. We live in a three-dimensional world. These three dimensions are observable and are necessary for anything to exist in the physical universe. To define any other dimension, beyond the three (in the physical world) is pure science fiction, even though it makes for some great science fiction. If a "4th dimension" were to be defined, it would have to be referring to the spiritual realm that is transcendent and outside of the constraints of the material, physical universe and its properties. In any case, it certainly would not be "time" because time is "No Thing"... Time is "Nothing". It has no power, because it has no being or real existence outside of an idea. It is only a word and nothing more!

What is Chance?
Chance is just another word. It is a word we use to describe mathematical probabilities based on relative factors. If a coin is flipped 100 times, it is commonly understood that the "chance" or "odds" of that coin turning up heads will be "50/50". But does "chance" itself influence this result? No. What influences the result are variables that are real and can be measured like: weight, air density, pressure exerted on the coin when flipped, which side we started with, how we catch it, whether we turn it over after caught, etc ..There are several variables that will determine the coin's final side of exposure. But chance itself does not have power for determining the end results, because chance has no being, thus no power to do so. It is "No Thing" It is "Nothing"

Therefore, if starting with nothing, and given enough time (Nothing) plus enough chance (Nothing) will still result in NOTHING. Time and chance cannot allow for the possibility of a self created universe, because neither time nor chance have any power to do so. Neither have any being to do so. And if time and chance had being and power, then we would not be starting with nothing, because anything with "being" is something.

Some may try to point out that the Christian view of the universe, that maintains that God created the universe Ex Nihilo (from nothing) is guilty of the same claim of the cosmological view of the universe, stating that the universe was created Ex Nihilo (out of nothing). But the views are not the same. The Christian/Creation view never claims that the universe came from absolutely nothing because the view maintains that God is something and has always existed, with sufficiency to create the universe from no other existing matter. This is a different matter (pun intended).

Surely, No One Really Believes That The Universe Actually Created Itself Do They?
Believe it or not, this is the mantra of evolution! Evolution's "god's" are time, chance, and natural selection (as if anything in nature, without intelligence, can make any intelligent choices in "selecting" anything at all). In other words, their faith (belief system) is predicated on randomness rather than on order. It is the belief that disorder and non-complexity can and does evolve into order and complexity, given enough time and chance, through helpful mutations, that somehow know or can discern what is helpful to the system being built. But a value judgment involving "what is helpful" would require intelligence or intelligent design, which they avoid at all costs, because this would suggest a being transcendent to the universe for which they would have to be accountable to.

There is no true, hard science involved in any "macro-evolutionary" process, (microbe-to-man) because it is not testable, provable or reproducible. It is a belief system, based on faith, that everything we have is the result of nothing for no apparent reason (because reason requires intelligence). Evolutionists would be quick to argue that the "goal" of evolution is to improve on itself—but without any implied or necessary intelligence.

Note: It is important to distinguish the differences between "Micro-Evolution" and "Macro-Evolution" systems.

(2) The Universe is Self Existent (Eternal)?

Has the universe always existed?
Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before a Big Bang, it must be known that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature.

Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations, as essential elements of the proposed mechanisms, are not acceptable in submissions, due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability.

Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature or provable with any know science. The laws of physics simply to not support such bogus claims.

Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.

There is an even more important philosophical reason reason why the universe can not be eternal. If the universe has always existed, then by reason and by definition, there could not, and cannot be any change involved with the universe. Change requires influence. And if something is defined as "eternal", then self-change cannot be an attribute, or it would not, by definition, be eternal. However, the material universe has, and indeed still is exhibiting change. It is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The universe is mutable, changeable, and in constant flux. Therefore, the material universe cannot be self existent and eternal for these critical reasons. Change can only be accounted for by an an external influence for any change to happen at all. (This involves the law of contingency)

One may argue that even though the universe is changing, the original components, atoms, particles, etc.. may have always existed. If these so-called eternal particles are eternal, then even their order and configuration should not have changed, because change requires influence outside of the system we are examining, whether it be the universe in whole, or in its sub-atomic matrix. No matter how we break it down, the universe is changing and we must look to a transcendent source outside of the universe for the motivation and causality of its ever-changing condition.

Therefore, since that which is eternal cannot exhibit change on itself (otherwise it is not eternal) and since the universe is undergoing extreme change, then we must look beyond the universe itself to an eternal force or being that transcends and is responsible for the changing universe. We need to look beyond the universe itself for that which IS eternal-—because something is eternal, and it is NOT the universe!


(3) The Universe is the Result of Something Self Existent (Created)

The Universe was created!
The only option left in our philosophical process of elimination (deductive reasoning), is the reality that something or someone self-existent, eternal and transcendent to the universe, is directly responsible for the existence of our ever-changing mutable universe.

Something with the power of being in and of itself, with necessary power and self existence, eternal and unchangeable, is at the very core of all things that exist. All things that exist have their origins from this source. And since the source is not the universe itself, then something or someone transcendent to the universe must be the source by virtue of pure philosophical deduction via abstract reasoning.

Is the Eternal Source Transcendent to the Universe Just Inanimate In Nature?
An inanimate, lifeless and impersonal source, if eternal, would eternally be incapable of creating, because the act of creating, or producing something on its own, outside of itself would require the power of choice and purpose. By definition, anything inanimate is without life. Without life, there is no independence of choice, reason, purpose, or anything else creative enough to "choose" to influence anything nonexistent outside of itself, into something existent outside of itself. And, by sheer reason, if anything inanimate is the eternal source we are looking for, that which has always existed before the universe, then that should be all that would still exist now and nothing else, including the universe.

The Eternal Source Transcendent to the Universe Must Have Life and Purpose!
There is no other conclusion from all of this, than to accept the reality of an eternal Sovereign Being, personal in nature, all powerful, creative, and sufficient within Itself to willingly and purposely choose to create all that exists external and separate from Itself.

Since no one, in a human sense, was around when the universe was formed, and since recorded historical records and documentation only go back about six thousand years or so, the ONLY one who could possible describe the creation account with any authority, detail, and accuracy is the Author Himself—God! Therefore, if God is indeed the author of the universe and of life, and there is no logical reason why He is not, then God and only God has the authority to speak about it. And He has! (See Genesis Chapter 1)

There is only one such ontological Being that resembles the sovereign attributes of the eternal source we have been looking for here, that is responsible for the first cause of everything in existence. That first cause and source is described in remarkable detail in the pages of the Bible, specifically in the very first sentence in the very first book, Genesis 1:1 which states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Conclusion
Philosophy can only take us this far, and cannot offer any more detail regarding the personal nature of God. But I believe it has taken us far enough to support the truth claims of Christianity, found in the the pages of the Genesis, and of the God of the Bible who is described as being all powerful (sovereign), self-sufficient, self existent, all knowing, creative, and "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow".

Not only does God exist, but He must exist-—necessarily. There are no other rational options for us to flee to, if that is what we are trying to do. I would encourage those of you who are interested in learning more about this incredible Being, God, to whom we and the universe owe our existence, to read the Biblical Scriptures that refer to Him, for a more complete understanding of His divine nature and of His passion and plan for His creation.

---

Biblical References (NIV)

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 1:25
...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created.

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Psalms 95:5
The sea is His, for He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.

Psalms 95:6
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;

Isaiah 43:10
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.

Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself,

Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says—He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other".

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Proverbs 3:19
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place;

Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His understanding.