Nothingness,_Existence,_and_God

Leah Gruzdov God, Space, and Time Shrader Short Paper 1 A part of existence, people do not always grasp the significance that they exist. The awareness of this may seem mundane for those who just acknowledge that things just exist. On the surface there is not much question that there is a universe which includes everything, but there is a possibility that this universe could have been different or even nonexistent. Knowledge of this makes one ponder why there is anything at all, or if it is even possible for absolute nothingness to be the way things were. It would have been simple for there would not have been a single thing to complicate the idea of nothing as the idea would not even exist. The idea of nothing is very hard to grasp. Usually an empty room or the vastness of space comes to mind, but those are something and contain something in them, a concept. Complete and utter nothingness is and was never possible, since there are more ‘things’ than those of the physical. The possibility and concept of the world of nothing is already something existing. A possibility and a concept are ‘things’ so it follows that all concepts and all possibilities are things. This idea could be shot down to claim nothing was real, but if nothingness was what was real then that would be considered reality; the fact that nothingness would be reality puts at least one ‘thing’ into existence. There would have to be at least one. Therefore it is not logical that there would be nothing, so there has to be something. Nothingness is held to be the simplest and most natural way reality could have turned out. Many believe that this would have been enough to hinder existence. If this were true then nothingness would be reality, but as we can see there is a whole lot more than nothing in reality. The problem is whether a world of nothing is more natural than something existing or if naturalness is a deciding factor of existence. It could be that the natural way of reality would be for something to exist. It seems likely that there could have been nothing prior to being something, because there are particles discovered by quantum physics that appear from nowhere and disappear into nothing. This shows from what physics has discovered, that nothingness is spontaneous and unstable. Something that is unstable could not be simple. It would be more probable that what is stable would be reality. Something that is cannot spontaneously not be therefore something existing is more stable. There has to be something for nothingness is nothing. In agreement with Plato, the abstract exists, Forms in his words. These are things that are not governed by the physical or lack thereof. They exist whether or not anything else exists. Truths are such a thing. A truth can never not be true and has to always true therefore existing always. In addition to truths there are things like beauty, wisdom, justice, ideas, possibilities, and then some. Concepts and ideas would exist even if there was nothing to display them. Plato believed that there is a supreme and perfect Form of goodness. He also believed that there were souls which could ascend to a more perfect for state of being. It seems that he thought there were different levels to existence. This is actually seen in every aspect of this reality. There are concrete physical things as well as abstract things, properties, and events. There being different levels, some are more perfect than others. Of all the levels the most perfect, omnipotent, and good existence has to exist and have always existed. This existence is interpreted many different ways from Earl Conee’s ‘selector’ to the essence of truth to a being. This being is God. God encompasses all of what always existed; Truth, Goodness, Perfection, Love, Holiness and possibly Time are among a few. In Biblical reference God defines what He is saying He is “I AM” which means I exist, happen, and remain. If something just is, it cannot be that it ever was not. So from this basis of existence, God, everything else came into existence. The existence of God has been debated over for centuries. Some say God has to exist because something had to initiate everything that now is. Every effect has a preceding cause, meaning everything and every event ever has a different thing or reason making it happen. This would make a long chain as far back as things happened. This chain could not be infinitely long so there must be a link at the beginning that causes but was never caused. The only chain link that could possibly fit the criteria would be God or a being of that sort. It is just logically improbable that there would be an infinite number of causes that go back infinitely in time. There had to be a first cause. This could be God or some random particle popping into existence. The more plausible and satisfactory first cause is God. Those who disagree would say that a being, God, does not necessarily have to be the defining essence of what exists. In views like Axiarchy something such as the concept of goodness would cause all that existed. Things exist because it is good for them to exist. In this reality our definition of good would not describe the things that are. There are good things in existence as well as bad so goodness alone cannot be the deciding factor. The way that this universe works together so perfectly and how laws do not contradict each other shows there is something with more depth than goodness alone being the basis of existence. There has to be something greater and it is God. There has to be something that exists because it is just not conceivable, logical, or plausible for reality to be as nothingness.