I wrote this up, without having researched it first. Once I started looking around I found I had essentially re-created the Cosmological argument. I have some difference, but the likeness is interesting. My Notes and comments are of my own doing. These combine many different disciplines and influences from my reading. They are however, still my own thoughts and musings.
---------Argument starts here---------
Observation: “Objects” or “Effects” appear to exist separate from the “Object” I call myself. I say “appear” because technically speaking, I can’t prove that. There is a whole school of thought around the concept of “Adviata”, and is too much for this discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, I will take it as a given that “Objects” or “Effects” happen outside and independent of the “Object” called “me”, the observer. The appearance of separation and the separation are considered equal.
Observation: Every “Object” or “Effect” seems to have an underlying cause. IE: If A moves or is created, it is because B moved or created it, and B was moved or created by C, etc, until we get back to the ORIGINAL CAUSE.
Deduced: Therefore, there must have been an ORIGINAL CAUSE which started the chain of events leading to everything’s existence.
Inferred, from most major religions: the ORIGINAL CAUSE is a supreme, supernatural (read: outside of nature) being who has an interest in what we do, and made us in his likeness and image.
--------Argument ends here--------------
Comments: Why do we infer this? We think about the logic that takes us back to a beginning cause; is the idea that the creator made us in his image just anthropomorphic? Why wouldn’t it be a whale, or an invisible pink unicorn?
We are complex enough to believe that we must have a reason for existing. We are self aware; within our puny brains we believe we have ‘heard’ the creator speak to us, give us instructions. So we postulate that the creator endowed us with the SAME abilities, and a connection to the creator. Those thoughts, connections and instructions are unverifiable, but also un-falsifiable.
What if the original cause is beyond our understanding? What if those instructions are all in our heads and the result of seemingly disconnect thoughts coming from our own chemistry? Since anything we think is within the frame work of our understanding, anything we can postulate, think or imagine could automatically be what the original cause is NOT. Maybe the ORIGINAL CAUSE is by its nature beyond our understanding. Can you understanding a larger picture when you are a part of it? In other words, can "you" stop being "you" even for a second?
More Comments. The idea that there must be a 'beginning' of a chain of events implies "time". Time exists only within the framework of 'our' universe. Before there was something, was there nothing?
If this universe (including time) was created from 'nothing', by definition, the ORIGINAL CAUSE must be outside of that. This is subject to our idea of "beginning" because beginning automatically implies a starting point in time, which as I just stated only exists within the framework of what we know, and this universe.
Posts
