Logic vs. Theory
Preface: Logic is not data dependent so it is not susceptible to interpretation. Logic is often self evident and sometimes simple but always true; it either includes or excludes and there is no gray area. Valid theory is logic dependent; it is the accurate interpretation of data. Theory either indicates or contraindicates and comes in various degrees of reliability. It is most often based upon a hierarchy of underlying hypotheses, all of which must be true for a theory to be valid.
Derived from axiomatic principles and the deductions they engender, this thesis does not dispute accepted scientific data, but it does illustrate how the contemporary interpretation of that data often violates the canons of reason. It is the product of basic logic and critical thinking and is not dependent on empirical data. A simple, rational perspective is all that is necessary to resolve the enigma of existence without invoking undetectable extra dimensions, spontaneous singularities or supernatural deities.
To paraphrase Emperor Marcus Aurelius via Dr. Hannibal Lecter, "Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?" To understand the nature of the cosmos, one must focus on its two most fundamental phenomena: existence and change. Parsing the relationship between those two criteria with a critical rather than traditional perspective reveals the utter simplicity of the cosmic architecture.
Whether or not you ultimately agree with my conclusions, I hope you will find them to be an engaging and thought provoking mental exercise worthy of your participation. All I ask of you is to keep an open mind and consider the possibility the popular hypotheses of TV PHD's may be wrong and the Universe might not really be flat.
The Phenomenon of Existence
How was the Universe created? When did it begin?
To be blunt, it wasn't and it didn't. Those age-old philosophical questions are falsely premised.
Like Newton, Einstein originally believed the cosmos was static, eternal, isotropic and homogeneous (not so sure about infinite), and he accounted for the misbehavior of observed phenomena with a reverse engineered factor, a cosmological constant. When Hubble's cosmological redshift implied an expanding Universe, Einstein initially contested the assertion because the effect of gravity on light was sufficient to explain the observation. Photons passing through a gravitational field lose some energy, and since light velocity is constant, the loss has to come from a redshift of the wavelength. Forget stars, moons and planets, how many mass-laden ambient particles would a photon encounter in a multi-billion light year trek?
Gravitational redshift was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment and cosmological expansion was and still is theoretical. Unfortunately, Big Bang provided so much more fodder for academia's publish-or-perish scholars Einstein ultimately relented and suddenly the cosmos became perceived as a finite creation of the ancient past.
Einstein lamented his cosmological constant was his biggest mistake. It wasn't. Discarding it was.
Either the phenomenon of existence is the result of cause and effect or it is not.
"It is" implies Creation ex Nihilo
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the premise it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. Many secular models suggest it all began about fourteen billion years ago while most religious scholars depict a much more recent event. Both versions are demonstrably contrary to logic.
To create something is to cause it to exist, so creation is simply another term for the process of cause and effect. If we require everything that exists to be the result of creation and stipulate nothing existed prior to that process, then space, itself, must once have been absent until some ancient incipient event precipitated the manifestation of the cosmos and its sea of inhabitants. Any causative progenitor must be ruled out as it would either violate the second requisite of the premise or require such a creator to be a descendant of an even earlier predecessor similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. This never ending chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which inevitably results from any causative approach to the enigma of existence either implies no logical beginning or the involvement of some inexplicably spontaneous source not derived from causation. Such a source would not only violate the first requisite but would also render the entire premise of cosmic genesis totally moot, for if anything can exist without creation, why couldn't everything else?
Whenever the tenets of logic invalidate your argument, you should avoid them entirely, so there are those who would suggest whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to logic or the laws of nature. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the Universe in some miraculous act of divine inspiration. Many (but not all) contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of a spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today (the remaining cosmologists simply avoid the issue). Both hypotheses are equally specious. Once logic and the laws of nature are repealed anything is possible, even the absurd; and if we permit even one exception to those laws, why should we expect the rest of the cosmos to abide by them? You may freely choose to suspend rationality in favor of whichever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to profess your argument is derived from critical thinking.
So, why does something exist rather than nothing?
AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
It's a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must confess they believe in things that don't exist (they now have medications for that). At first you might consider the premise to be rather obvious and inconsequential, but its deeper significance categorically refutes both the ancient mythology of Genesis and the contemporary mathology of those cosmologists who tout Big Bang as the absolute beginning of all space and time.
Existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Something must exist in order to have a state of being and if being is necessary in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is derived from and thus subordinate to the more fundamental phenomenon of existence. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative, so simple logic defines existence as the source of cause and effect, not the result of it.
It certainly doesn't take an Einstein or a Hawking to recognize the obvious, all it takes is an unbiased perspective; thinking neither outside the box nor inside the box, but eliminating the box entirely. This isn't exactly rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in mathematics, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it, but in the publish-or-perish ivory tower of academia, hypotheses featuring multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into entropy death are where the real money is (with some strings attached). Beautiful equations can describe fantasy as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophisticated scholarly branes.
"It is not" implies Existence ex Nihilo
All forms of change are governed by those fundamental laws of nature called principles, so wouldn't it logically follow that the key which unlocks the enigma of existence must be a principle instead of a process? If we examine the nature of change, one simple prevailing dynamic emerges; a ubiquitous paradigm found at the heart and soul of every equation, a familiar axiom universally known and accepted. Sadly, the significance of this basic principle has been ignored since the inception of scientific inquiry and, ironically, it remains concealed, hidden in plain sight.