Spirituality, Religion, Nature
Conjectures about
the “Beyond”
We Do Not Have
Certainty of Any Metaphysical as the Concept of God Is
If we
talk about metaphysics we should be aware that those concepts, until they have
the evidence to support them, are no more than baseless conjectures. Some ideas
associated with the existence of a first Principle (or God) lack evidence and
are, therefore, mere conjectures, but there is some probability that they
exist. These concepts “beyond” physics are called metaphysical. The idea of God
(in the common interpretation of this name) is subject to different
interpretations, but all of them coincide in that it is a metaphysical concept.
There
are also various interpretations as for what we would be able to think, or to
consider certain in relation to some aspects associated with the idea of God.
Some interpretations that are "added" to the concept of God, are no more than mere conjectures, at times pure
imagination as I have explained in other places. I am going to say what I think in that
respect. Obviously the atheists reject
the name God (and with reason, given
the many false connotations that that name wraps in the popular
interpretation), but many atheists do not necessarily reject the concept of a Cause without Cause that exists for
itself, that, finally, is what the concept of God signifies without need to
use the word God. (Please see the link Some words for
atheists and the like where I give examples of atheists that accept a first
cause without cause.)
What we Know
That is Certain. We can consider certain the existence of a
First Cause without-cause (God). That
First Principle is an eternal, necessary,
and infinite action. It is not,
therefore, somewhat physical, because everything that is physical requires a
cause, and the premise here is that it is without-cause; besides that,
everything that is physical is also limited, and the premise here is that the
first cause is infinite.
The
reason to be so sure and certain of the existence of a First Principle is that
there is a logical evidence so solid,
that not many atheists, not even the famous one, Richard Dawkins (among others), dare to deny it. (Please see the link above.) Everything else
that we may be told in relation to the First Principle are mere conjectures;
perhaps possible, but there is not certainty.
The
First Principle, as an infinite act
lacks all limits of power, science, space (spaceless), and time (timeless), to
mention only some of its main properties.
As necessary action, the First
Principle acts necessarily, that is, must act; that is why the universe exists
necessarily, has existed always, and is eternal, because the action of the
First Principle is a necessary act.
(Please see the link above.)
Some
scientists and physicists (not all) do not see any problem affirming that the
first quanta had appeared in the universe as by art of magic, and at times
espouse theories that neither respond nor resolve the problem. That position is, in my opinion, absurd,
irrational, and meaningless; in the physical world there is no effect without
cause.
We
affirm, therefore, that there has to be a principle without cause, a
cause-not-caused. This is, simply,
logical and reasonable. It seems also that such a Principle has to be something
not physical, because if it is not, we return to the question: how does that first physical entity
begin? This question is the rationale to
understand why so many lucubrations about the metaphysical are done.
What are The Conjectures. Among others, we do not know for
certain if the subject of the First
Principle’s existence (its act of being) exists in and by itself; if it is
something independent, and different from what certainly exists as the Universe
(the Nature); or if of the act of existing of the First Principle identifies
with the Universe. In the first hypothesis (the existent in itself as a subject) we do not have a remote idea of how that
subject would be; we could only speculate, make conjectures.
Some of
the reasons for that uncertainty is that we do not
have either evidence or explanation of how the first physical quanta were
originated. Another problem is time: we
do not know for certain if what is called time had a beginning, or if simply
there is no time, and what exists is an eternal existence. A "jump" from eternity to time is
so enormous (infinite) that it is practically inexplicable, perhaps
"impossible;" that is, that “time” couldn’t begin but it ever was
since it is the very existence, to what I manage to understand. Any other interpretation that would be givene
would be no more than a mere conjecture, or theory, without empirical
base.
Of this
we can conclude that the metaphysical concepts or entities—if they exist—are
not subject to observation or empirical test, and they are governed only by the
logic of reason. When a metaphysical
concept has a high degree of logic or rationality, then there is also a high
degree of probability that it exists.
An “only physical” world?"
If the existence of everything that exists is reduced to physical things
only, then the first thing that we have to ask is about the origin of the first
quanta or physical particles that existed.
There is here a problem that requires explanation: how did the first
physical entity begin? There must be an
explanation. The fact that there are no
empirical proofs confirms to us that we can only speculate. We do not know, and
probably we will never know it.
Do metaphysical things make sense
nowadays? It seems that in an era like ours it is
useless or senseless to speak about something beyond the physical world, as it
is for example, the idea of God. So deep
has materialism been established in the contemporary society, that it doesn’t
tolerate speaking about metaphysics, even when the logical reasons for their
existence are so powerful. Some come to
consider the hypothesis of God insanity.
Nevertheless, there are still people in the other extreme of the
hypothesis that believe in a supernatural and creationist God; these people are
in a serious and urgent need of revising their beliefs. This happens, without counting the NONES that
deserve special consideration.
The NONES, a majority hastily
growing. The NONES are those people who answer NO to all
the questions of religious character.
They are NON-believers, NON-atheists, NON-agnostics,
do NOT affiliate with some religious group, church or denomination. The NONES are the majority of non-believers
that most quickly grows in the United States; they grew, from 8% of the
population in 1990, to 15% in 2008. It
is expected that they will be 25% of the population for 2015. But the NONES—and this "but" is
important—believe in the existence of a
higher power. They come from
non-religious and religious environments; they are men and women, and they
pursue spiritual values.
God as Nature, or Nature as God.
A way to clarify this paradigm of God is to look at Nature as the
"higher power" that the NONES speak about. This is quite wise; Nature is so powerful and
wise! or, as Spinoza says, Deus sive Nature, God or Nature. [1]
Nature comprehends All-that-Is, the very Cause of all Causes enclosed. It seems that people do not want to exclude
completely the Wisdom and the Power "hidden" in Nature, as I
explained in previous reflections such as: Nature,
Meta-physics, Metaphysics, Whether the Idea
of God is Superfluous? - Reflections About an Eternal
Universe,
and My Name is
Existence, To Be, “I AM.” These reflections develop this theme
extensively without need to repeat it here.
Unfortunately these titles are available in English only, till the time
when I do the translation.
Go to Content
CONJECURES 04-28-12