Let's examine the current scientific orthodoxy: A vacuum fluctuation wherein the mass-energy equivalent of 10^80 baryons (which created events and duration AKA time and space) popped into existence. Period. Why this happened is not commented upon (officially), and the only ones I know of who are looking into it (Penrose's cyclic conformal cosmology) are derided for it. Even Penrose's (elegant) theory just posits infinite cycles of creation, turtles all the way down.
Phillip K. Dick's "eye at the end of time" framework he puts forth in his exegesis is an interesting resolution to the philosophical paradox - and leads to the prime mover/observer.
The two possible answers to "why" asked in finitum about anything are God or nihil. There are many interesting side jaunts that can be taken as the intermediate answers unfold, but eventually things in the grand sense are caused or not. This is an elegant argument for Cause.
R.C. Sproul once articulated a sort of trilemma for the idea of existence. He said that if something exists, it must either be: 1) made by something/someone else, 2) had always existed for all eternity, or 3) came out from nothing.
Most people agree that the universe had a beginning, and that nothing can come out from nothing; so we are left with either the infinite regression route, or assign a First Cause - which by logical necessity must be eternal and uncreated.
Occam's Razor principle state that explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements are preferred, and because assigning one First Cause is a much smaller set than assigning infinite entities of regressions, the First Cause argument are more likely to be correct.
As for whether this First Cause has a mind/consciousness, we can look at the quantum observer effect, which demonstrates that the very act of measuring (or observing) quantum forces it from a wave-like state of multiple possibilities into a single, definite state. This suggests that all particles (which form matter) exists only as waves until it is observed, which suggest that matter is dependent on the mind rather than the other way around.
Prof. Richard Conn Henry muses: "Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
what's even more mind blowing is you must believe not only that everything around us had to have had a beginning - a creation - while at the same time believing that the Creator with amazing eternal intelligence did not have a beginning - He just "is/was/will-be." ouch - my head hurts.
Agreed. This is one reason I would partially reject free will as is commonly defined (I have a bit of a complicated position on it lol). That being said, though, not everything makes complete sense, even in my worldview -- and I'm fine with that. My only goal in life is to have faith in Jesus and trust that he knows what he's doing.
Scripture repeatedly proves God gave mankind free will. What are you talking about?
Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
Fascinating topic. This is the best explanation I have come across.
Yeah kid really put a lot of thought into this clearly. He's a good writer.
It’s an impressive piece! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for reading RJ!! Glad you liked it.
It was very unique and a really interesting perspective on that age old question! Definitely food for thought :)
Let's examine the current scientific orthodoxy: A vacuum fluctuation wherein the mass-energy equivalent of 10^80 baryons (which created events and duration AKA time and space) popped into existence. Period. Why this happened is not commented upon (officially), and the only ones I know of who are looking into it (Penrose's cyclic conformal cosmology) are derided for it. Even Penrose's (elegant) theory just posits infinite cycles of creation, turtles all the way down.
Phillip K. Dick's "eye at the end of time" framework he puts forth in his exegesis is an interesting resolution to the philosophical paradox - and leads to the prime mover/observer.
Which leads to Him. At least it did for me.
The less belief in the Creator leads to an equal increase in Evil.
The two possible answers to "why" asked in finitum about anything are God or nihil. There are many interesting side jaunts that can be taken as the intermediate answers unfold, but eventually things in the grand sense are caused or not. This is an elegant argument for Cause.
Exactly. No matter how someone might try to escape it, it always comes back to God. That's pretty telling 😂. Thanks for reading!
R.C. Sproul once articulated a sort of trilemma for the idea of existence. He said that if something exists, it must either be: 1) made by something/someone else, 2) had always existed for all eternity, or 3) came out from nothing.
Most people agree that the universe had a beginning, and that nothing can come out from nothing; so we are left with either the infinite regression route, or assign a First Cause - which by logical necessity must be eternal and uncreated.
Occam's Razor principle state that explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements are preferred, and because assigning one First Cause is a much smaller set than assigning infinite entities of regressions, the First Cause argument are more likely to be correct.
As for whether this First Cause has a mind/consciousness, we can look at the quantum observer effect, which demonstrates that the very act of measuring (or observing) quantum forces it from a wave-like state of multiple possibilities into a single, definite state. This suggests that all particles (which form matter) exists only as waves until it is observed, which suggest that matter is dependent on the mind rather than the other way around.
Prof. Richard Conn Henry muses: "Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
what's even more mind blowing is you must believe not only that everything around us had to have had a beginning - a creation - while at the same time believing that the Creator with amazing eternal intelligence did not have a beginning - He just "is/was/will-be." ouch - my head hurts.
Agreed. This is one reason I would partially reject free will as is commonly defined (I have a bit of a complicated position on it lol). That being said, though, not everything makes complete sense, even in my worldview -- and I'm fine with that. My only goal in life is to have faith in Jesus and trust that he knows what he's doing.
Scripture repeatedly proves God gave mankind free will. What are you talking about?
Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
Amen!