Existence And Nothingness

Existence/Nothingness There is nothing but existence by sankofakanian

Does the Universe have a beginning? Before answering the previous question, we must ask ourselves many more questions. For example, What do we mean by « Beginning » of the Universe? When we say «Beginning » are we talking about the instant the « Universe » came to be? I will assume that this is what we are talking about. What happened at that instant? The obvious answer would be « the Universe happened ». Yet we are all baffled by the « tour de force » pulled by the then nascent « Universe », the void emerging « Universe ». Some of us decide to live with that paradox. Nowadays, that ex-nihilo birth is called « Big Bang ». Religiously inclined men and women prefer to call it « Genesis ». There are many more names, in many more cultures to symbolise the « Universe » birth. Yet, How does something comes out of « Nothing »? By « Nothing » we mean the absence of anything. The absolute Void. Being religious, I usually will not contradict a proponent of a God created Universe. Still, if there's a « God » before the Universe is created, then the Universe is not created out of « Nothingness », right? Otherwise we would be equating « God » and « Nothingness », wouldn't we? The word « Universe » may mean a lot of things. Each one of us may have attached to such a word different concepts. The least common denominator of the concepts thus attached might be the concept of « All that was,is,will be ». Surely, this concept can be accepted as semantically close enough to that of « Universe » that they can be equated. Now, let's equate our new concept of « Universe » with that of « Existence ». We can surely do so since « All that was » existed, « All that is » exists, and « All that will be » will exist. Can the concept of « Existence » be applied to anything else? If not, we have thus exhausted the meaning of the concept of « Existence ». We can now rephrase the previous question: How does « Existence » arise from « Nothingness »? The two concepts are antithetical. And really, « Existence » does not have to be deduced from « Nothingness ». In fact « Existence » does not have to have a « Beginning » at all. I suspect that only that which exists can engender another existant. If we accept the previous intuition as some sort of axiom, then given an existant we can never regress in time to

« Nothingness ». There will always be an originating existant. The chain of such originating existants would recede in time to infinity. By using an intuition, an axiom, to make my point I recognise that I am just stating a personal belief. In fact the question is Can we prove the impossibility of creation ex-nihilo ? A dual question would be Can we prove the necessity of creation ex-nihilo? Both questions seem incredibly hard to answer without resorting to beliefs, be they religiously or scientifically worded. Yet, Isn't it simpler to believe that the Universe has always been there? To answer « yes » to this question is not the same as believing in a static « Universe ». In fact a « Big Bang »- like event has its place in such a non-cosmogony. The « Big Bang » would just be a state change of « Existence ». The « Universe » at that instant would have stopped being something we don't yet fully understand to become what would have evolved into the Universe as we know it today. In that sense what we call « The Beginning » of our universe would become a mere state change of « The Universe». Remembering Occam's razor here, « entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity »

we can reject the necessity of creation ex-nihilo and the rôle « Nothingness » plays in such a scenario and embrace a dynamic « Universe » that has no « Beginning » nor «End ». I must admit that a couple of beliefs helped me in carrying on with my reflection. However, Do we always to call beliefs to the rescues when dealing the question of the « Beginning »? It suffices to compare the concepts of « Existence » and « Nothingness » to attain an answer to our primordial question. In the previous definition of the concept of « Existence » we equated « Existence » with « All that was, is,will be ». Nothingness is what is not part of « Existence » as we defined it. As such « Nothingness » has never been. Hence, I will answer to the question opening this text by saying that the Universe has no « Beginning ». It may change, but the « Universe », taken as « All that was,is,will be », never started. What is the place of « God » in such a « Universe »? The previous answer does not diminish the importance I give to « God » in my understanding of the « Universe ». However, I must admit that it brings to my awareness the problem of the « Transcendence-Immanence » of « God ». After denying a beginning to the « Universe » and equating the « Universe » and « Existence » I am forced to believe in « God » as not separated

from the « Universe ». It is so since I defined « Existence » as « All that was, is, will be ». Surely since I believe in an all encompassing « God », He must be « Existence ». Eventhough I do not see anything wrong with « God » being so close to me, I will have to devote more of my thinking time to the problem of the « Transcendence-Immanence » of the « God » I believe in.