The Precursor Theorem

8 min read

Deviation Actions

psudodrake's avatar
By
Published:
1.7K Views
Among the various things that I study, one of which is Philosophy.  And I am glad to say that I've learned just enough of it to screw me up for the rest of my life :D

Nevertheless, I feel inspired with the following, something I'd like to call "The Precursor Theorem".

It is essentially a game I played with myself one day (no, not the one involving the left or right hand and a bar of soap with the convenient floor drain in the bathtub), in regards to theological questions.  The game has one rule, which is the scientific Law of Equivalent Exchange.  No, this isn't an episode of Full Metal Alchemist.  Economists might recognize this law as TANSTAAFL... or... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  It belies: To get something, something must be sacrificed.

Example: You get a Free Lunch coupon in the mail.  You won it somehow.  Hey cool!  A free lunch!  Except... it isn't entirely free, is it?  In order to get a free lunch, you have to redeem the coupon at the place of business that will allow it.  What this means is that you must travel to that location, you must spend the time to go there, order your food and eat your food, and then travel home.  How are you traveling?  By foot?  By car?  By bus?  Gas costs money, bus fair costs money, the energy you use to walk there plus additional time by not taking a car will take longer... and so on.  Though you aren't going to pay with money for the lunch, you will pay in other means.  This coins the phrase: "Time is Money".

That example aside, scientifically, it is exemplified by the words: "You cannot get something from nothing."  It is this scientific law which many stand upon as their soap box when they disavow the existence of a God.

Ok... let's test that then shall we.

In this game we seek the mater or what begat something, or where did something come from.  Keep in mind for the entirety of this game that you cannot answer something in a non-scientific way.  What that means: "You cannot get something from nothing."

So we begin... with the ending.  Or the present, and it begins with a simple question:

Who am I?  My name is Daniel.

Where did I come from?  Ultimately, I came from a mother and a father.

Where did they come from?  They came from their mothers and fathers.

And thus we come to a cycle.  It can be assumed that Human Progeny will continue as thus till we get to the first mother and the first father... the first parents.  For scientific reasons, we'll not give them obvious names of Adam and Eve.

So then where do humans come from?  Well through a process of evolution, humans evolved from Cro-Magnon men and women.

Where did Cro-Magnons come from?  From primates.

Where did primates come from?  From amphibians.

Amphibians came from lung fish.

Lung fish came from fish

Fish came from multi-celled organisms.

Multi-celled organisms came from single-celled organisms

Single-celled organisms came from the primordial ooze, where acids mixed together and continued in a "Perpetual chemical reaction"

Where did primordial ooze come from?  Well the Primordial ooze is a collection of various acids from the common elements of Oxygen, Carbon, Phospherous, Hydrogen and Nitrogen in water.

Where did those elements come from?  Through various chemical reactions as our planet formed, creating rain, belching various other base molecules.

Those molecules came from our earth forming.

Our earth formed by gravitational forces condensing the dust-like components of a nebula that not only formed our Earth, but the sun and the other planets as well.

Where did the nebula come from?  From another star that went super nova.

Few people know the fact that our sun, Sol, is actually a third generation sun.  So another cycle is established here of star building, where a star is built from nebulae, condenses, fires, ages and then goes super nova, whereas its stellar material create more stars and planets and so on, back to the original nebula.

Where did that original nebula come from?  The creation of the universe is considered to be the Big Bang.  An explosion of such monumental proportions that we have no concept of its size and brightness.  A nebula large enough to create not just one but literally countless galaxies was formed from this first initial explosion.

But where did the Big Bang come from?  Research at CERN indicates that a collision of raw energy creates both matter and anti-matter, and streams of incredible colliding energy could create an explosive reaction of matter and anti-matter, where the two colliding annihilating against each other both brilliantly and explosively, and its this chain reaction, if in enough quantities, would not only create the Big Bang, but also the initial stellar-building nebulous matter.

So then where did the energy come from? ...

...

Anyone?

And here is where we come to a paradox.  Even if an answer to this question is found... that opens up another question about origins.  If an answer is created as to where the energy came from, then the next question prior to that is where that came from.

A theoretical answer to my last question is from another universe, coughed into our universe through a black hole.  Well that's fine and dandy, so we establish a cycle again of universe building and collapse, over and over again, so therefore we come right on back to the protoverse... the first universe, coming back to its point of origin, and the question arises again:

Where did the energy come from?

And we return to the paradox.  No matter how many answers of origins there are, it comes right back to the fact that something had to come from nothing to create our universe.  The point of fact about a scientific law is that it must be true in absolutely every last form.  There can be no exceptions, or else it ceases to be a law.  As such, presenting the existence of a paradox necessitates that Law of Equivalent exchange, at least for some entity, is proven to be false.

The problem for most people is that in order to believe in a God, that one must have faith enough to stretch unto heaven to meet with God at least figuratively.  The thing about this God is that He (or She) refuses to be proven.  There is no proof because He (or She) wants us to believe.  But through the process of this game, you've just gone back in time to the origin of creation, to the point where you and God are separated by a single paradox.  So no longer are you required to leap to the heavens with your faith... now all you need to is make a simple step over a gap.  It's really a small step... and once you acknowledge it, then the whole of His (or Her) Creation comes into mind, and you find out that, as Dan Brown wrote his character Robert Langdon to say: "Science and Religion are telling the same story... just in different languages."

"God created the heaven and the earth" - a great void of darkness to which creation can be made separated from heaven.

"And God said let there be light" - The big bang and galaxy building.

"And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the water." - Planet building

"And God said, let the earth bring forth grass..." and similar life forms.  The creation of life in all its forms.  I personally do not believe in evolution for the sake of evolution, but evolution through adaptation does happen and we have scientific proof of that.

And so on...

Back to paradox to prove a law false, at least for God's sake, and once you realize that there is a Creator, a Maker, then you may develop your own Religion.  Remember, there are currently seven billion religions on the Earth.  It is up to you to chose your own beliefs.  If you seek to align yourself with a church, where there are others who believe as you do, then do so.

As a final note, I call my game a Theorem.  It's because just like scientific law is unproven through paradox... that same paradox cannot prove my Theorem and make it a law.  God refuses to be proven... you must believe.

"
© 2011 - 2024 psudodrake
Comments24
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Given that you purport to be a student of philosophy, the fact you chose to ignore the obvious issue of infinite regress seems something of a school boy error.

Also, if you're quoting Dan FUCKING Brown to support your argument, you're clearly just having a laugh.