philosophy theology


Always looking for a more compact/clear way to say things, here’s a current version of what I take to be the only logical possibilities (in no particular order!) for the origin of ‘all things’/’universe’/’multi-verse’/’everything’ (A.T.U.M.E.), with my comments in parentheses.

  1. A.T.U.M.E. has no origin, because A.T.U.M.E. is an illusion (Thanks to Descartes for his observation — cognito ergo sum — that our act of thinking demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that at least we exist.).
  2. A.T.U.M.E. has no origin, because A.T.U.M.E. has always existed in some form (This claim is, of course, just as non-empirically verifiable as several others.  First Cause argumentation, however, at least postulates a First, supernatural, Cause in relation to — in contrast with — every other, natural, cause.).
  3. A.T.U.M.E. is self orign-ating (There is significant over-lap between 2 and 3 – the main difference being that 3 postulates some kind of origin/beginning/deriving source.)
  4. A.T.U.M.E. is ‘other’ origin-ating (This seems to me to be the most logical/reasonable thing to believe, as it seems that explaining reality in terms of the very same reality is to not explain anything – whilst explaining the origin of reality in terms of an ‘other’ is to explain — quite literally — everything.)

2 replies on “origin”

If I may chime in again (sorry)

I reject the question. It is inexorably impossible to ask, and answer. Because our concepts – any of them, all of them – necessarily arrise from within the A.T.U.M.E. Including our notions of ‘origin’ and ‘beginning’.

Sorry, but it’s actually quite easy to ask – so easy that I suppose it’d be quite a task to find people who haven’t asked it in one way or another – and given answers which are at least provisional, logical, reasonable (which is probably as much as anyone could expect). :)
More than that, I could just as easily reject your rejection; and claim that your concept of rejection also arises from within A.T.U.M.E. :)
Note that in the O.P., I never claim some kind of perfect epistemic surety – only that the options were ‘logical’.

Comments are closed.