Something significant has shifted for me today. My previous consideration of the first cause argument completely crumbled.
I've been so harshly indoctrinated into the epistemological approach of invisible character fillers that it really took me a while to realize that I was coming to the argument all wrong. When people argue about a first cause, it usually appears that both people are trying to provide an answer to two equally valuable questions. "How could something come from nothing?" and "Could the physical universe have an infinite regression?"
Those sound like two equally valuable mysteries, right? Totally wrong.
I don't claim to know much about physics, and that makes it kind of intimidating to talk about. But I have followed new articles about the general cosmological theories.
At this point in history, it seems like we're at a point again, where thinkers have only said: "We thought we knew, but we were wrong again, or can't be sure." At some point, professionals believed that time had a beginning, and then they refuted themselves in many cases.
We have to acknowledge that it's math. It's a thing that's attempting to mathematically project only a very approximate understanding into the motions of the observable universe, and it's not an overstepping telescope that travels back in time. So understandably the big bang is still one of the biggest mysteries out there.
So, what I've been realizing is that there is literally no reason to ever suggest that a person has to provide a theory on how something could come from nothing.
The most factual thing that we know of to be true is that the universe exists. That's it. That is the end and all of what we know for sure. There's never been a point where it's knowably not existed, to us.
The non-existence of the universe is the ONLY assumption and only seemingly anti-scientific claim that would ever have to be proved, and not the other way around. Because of the non-existence of the universe, and the existence of the universe on not on equal grounds, as far as probability goes. So far it's only and in every way 100% verifiable that the universe does exist. In light of this it's a harsh 0% probably, and 0% verifiable that the universe has ever not existed.
Asking someone how something could come from nothing is like asking someone what if you existed, even though you didn't exist also?
That's a really weird abstract thing to believe and have faith in, that something that we know exists used to not exist in magical ways we can't even imagine. That's the greater assumption if compared with the concept of infinite physical regression.
Author: Zech Gumpfer
