Alright, so you beleive in the big bang, you beleive in a god, whatever. Now, you came from the biological processes of your parents, who in turn came from a series of reproductions leading all the way back to either microbes or Adam and Eve, depending on your theological slant.
Now whatever this origin of human life was, it came into being on planet earth. This planet was slowly formed from gasses and particles and such over millions of years. Okay. Now these particles, as part of all the matter in the universe, could, theoretically, be traced back in their formations and movements all the way back to one creation in time.
Now this creation could be either a “Big Bang” of exploding matter or the conscious decision of some celestial being. Either way, I want to ask an age old question: Where oh where did the force to create the first forces come from?
Now, keep in mind that, as our good friend Newton tells us, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So how did it come about if it was not created? Also, while the “big bang” may have been an occurance of the most infinetesimal of probabilities, how could the forces of chance and probability function when there is not yet force or matter to enact them?
It seems to me that, under a scientific view of the universe, there is absolutely no way that matter could be created without there first being matter to bring about its own creation. Of course, time itself could have originated at its own beginning. This would twist our definition of “time” as being a (pardon the pun) “timeline” of events leading back and forth through history.
Through Einstein’s theory of relativity, it has been defined that time and space aer both relative and alterable. The constant is, in fact, light (and its defined speed). Now while time itself may have begun instantaneously, that doent explain how light did, because if you hit a “wall” with no time, matter, energy, or constant, then it is a realm of quite literally nothing. Surely there could be an even larger expansion of the cosmos, a “multi-verse” whose energies orginated our universe’s set of of physical rules, but then of course the argument just leads farther back.
Sorry, I’m rambling, but it is 2 am here, haha. Pardon me.
ahem Now without bashing the scientific explanations any further for the moment, let’s take a look at the theological issue.
Okay, first there was nothing. Well, nothing except God. Then God created the heavens and the Earth and everything starts. Well, that’s all fine and dandy if you beleive in that sort of thing (btw I myself am a Catholic, so don’t think I’m God-bashing here, just trying to seperate the viewpoints and argue from the paradoxical middle), but then, what of God before creation? I’m sure he could just float around in nothingness all he wants, but if the omnipotent God thinks back through his own existence, he must eventually come to a stopping point.
God must have been created somehow at some point. So, you have the question of how a non-existent force can create itself. Now, of course you could argue that God exists infinitely back through non-existence and NEVER was created. This would mean, however, that God could NOT, no matter how hard he tried, remember back to the beginning of his existence. He would be bound by the fact of his own infinity. But being an all-powerful and omnipotent being, how can he not accomplish this task? He is limited by the definition of infinity. Of course, if he created infinity, then he must have come first, but then before he created the meta-physical concept of infinity, could he not then remember back to his own beginning? No, because the infinite limit to his past is inherent in his own existence. By being infinitely in existence, God could not be in existence without his own self-created concept of an infinite universe already being in place. Thus we have ourselves a paradox.
Alright, well that was longer and more rambling then I originally thought, and I’m sure there are some omissions or errors in my logic, but that’s what you guys are here for! Tell me, how is existence possible if it is inherently impossible? Just wondering…