How was the Universe created? When did it begin?

The process of cause and effect seems to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so the premise that the cosmos was coaxed into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. Science and religion seem to agree that the physical presence of the Universe began at some specific point in time, they just differ over the date of the event and the process that created it. But whether you approach it from a singularity or genesis point of view, the conventional wisdom is flawed, and the flaws are so apparent that one can only wonder how the concept of 'creation' could have ever been taken seriously.

The existence of nothing requires no justification, it is uniquely considered to be essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a dark, dimensionless primal void - a venue completely empty, without time or even space. Presumably, this featureless vacuum reigned supreme until the dawn of creation, when an extraordinary transformation suddenly brought forth the physical manifestation we now call 'the cosmos'. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in an act of divine inspiration. 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 some spontaneously spawned singularity. But the process of cause and effect involves two basic elements - a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been caused by something - which violates the original contention that nothing existed before the event. And if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must,

Click to start/stop

too, have been the product of some predecessor, which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

There are those who would suggest that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. You may freely choose to repeal those laws in favor of whatever fantasy you wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to claim that your argument is logical. Once the supernatural has been evoked, anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, then so can others - without limit.

There are two basic phenomena in the Universe: 1) existence and 2) change. Existence is the most fundamental. From it, the process of change is derived. States of being may be altered from one condition to another, but existence is not a condition or a 'state of being', it is the very phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change or be changed, before something can act or be acted upon, it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur, then the process of 'cause and effect' is a derivative of - and subordinate to - the phenomenon of existence.

The principle that explains a phenomenon cannot be that phenomenon's own subordinate derivative. Cause and effect is a function of existence - not visa versa - so whether or not our cosmic observations seem red-shifted, the Universe wasn't created. It didn't suddenly pop into being, nor is it likely to vanish in a similar manner.

How do you explain the physical presence of the cosmos?

There does exist a far more fundamental dynamic, a prevailing principle that rules over the process of cause and effect. It is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It is a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its influence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its real significance has been overlooked and undiscovered. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lies hidden in plain sight.