THE EMPTINESS OF THE BIG BANG THEORY AS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

THE BIG BANG?

Many scientists explain that LIFE is a consequence of The Big Bang, so-called. This theory is incomplete, illogical, irrational and somewhat naïve.

NB: The distinction between the theories of material science (or physical facts) and the true origin of life needs to be established because often the inference that life must have begun after the creation of the physical universe is often made due to the lack of the understanding of the true nature of life.

It is a simple fact to grasp, that physical science will, by definition, never be able to explain the non-physical in its own terms.

EITHER "NOTHING" DOES EXIST OR IT DOES NOT EXIST

From whence comes the Big Bang? It may be said by some that the "Big Bang" originates from "negative space", or perhaps from a "void", or from "antimatter", or simply from "energy". But the underlying implication is that at one time there existed nothing (although this is a misnomer), and at a later stage there was something.

If it is said that matter existed before life, then it must be shown where that matter originated. If it is said that there was antimatter, then it must be shown from whence originated antimatter, and so on.

Now, it might be argued that anything which is "void" or anything which is "antimatter", does not have to have come from anywhere, it just is. But this is where the whole futility of the argument that from "nothing" can come something, becomes evident. If antimatter or void is to be given any attribute at all, then it must be something (by claiming the existence of void or antimatter means that they are something which exist) - so where did that "something" come from? This Theory does not explain the origin of real life at all, because it is based on illogical foundations. A certain material formation might have a foundation with this theory but this is a far cry from the formation of life, the living essence which animates the material in certain conditions.

It is all very well to say that from the very outset that there was "nothing", but such a statement or concept is purely irrational, and science is meant to be rational. For "nothing" to exist, there must be something, or it would not exist.

"EXISTENCE" MUST EXIST

Existence, by its very definition, exists. On the contrary, absolute "nothingness" has no attributes or else it would be something; an attribute (existence) would be attributed to "nothingness", and therefore it would no longer be "nothingness" because it must be a "something" to possess a quality.

Even if "nothingness" were to develop (at a later stage) a quality or characteristic which permitted a completely random and uncoordinated explosion or implosion (Big Bang), then that original "nothingness" would never really have been "nothingness" but a "something with attributes". "Nothingness" would never have originally existed because it would have clearly been in possession of a number of attributes or characteristics, i.e. "development", "randomness", "chaos", "ability" etc. There would originally have had to have been a "something" which obviously was a great deal more than "pure nothingness".

If the claim is that something came from nothing, then even in the most "desolate" state of "nothingness" (so-called), there must be the quality of "potential", and therefore there was never "absolutely nothing" in the first place because potential existed in this "nothingness"; therefore "nothingness" is far from a suitable description for "something with potential". If something comes from nothing, then that "nothing" would not truly be "absolute nothing" - the least it could be is something with "ability" or "potential".

"NOTHINGNESS" HAS NEVER EXISTED

Clearly, "absolute nothing" does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist. "Nothingness" is merely a concept created by a mind and shared with other minds. Even when "nothingness" becomes a concept, paradoxically, "nothingness" becomes a "something", namely, a concept - a concept exists whereas "nothing" cannot have existence. The corollary is that there is no such thing as "absolute nothing" because "absolute nothing" does not possess the potential to become "something" or else it would not be "absolute nothing". Indeed, what it would be is "something with potential". But where did that "something with potential" come from?

RELATIVE "NOTHING"

Certainly, the concept of "nothing" can be used in common thought. A room may have objects in it, but when those objects are removed, the room is said to have nothing in it. This is a relative nothing - the relative "nothing" referring to a room which does not contain objects. However, even in a fairly concrete sense, the room has the potential to have objects in it. Therefore, the room does not have "absolute nothing" in it because it possesses characteristics: the ability and potential to have physical objects in it.

THE CONTRADICTION THAT "NOTHINGNESS" CAN BECOME SOMETHING

A human mind is said to think and imagine, but the mind is a non-physical aspect of existence commonly associated with a physical structure (the brain); the mind possesses the ability and potential to think in some form or at least be aware to a degree, and of course many other attributes. So, indeed, the "mind" actually exists - it cannot be measured by repeatable laboratory-condition experiments, but this elusive non-physical structure exists. The mind is not "nothing". However, in relation to the main subject, for "nothing" to literally exist, something must be attributed to it and therefore it could never have been "absolute nothing" in the first place because true "absolute nothingness" cannot possess any attribute (e.g. potential) or it would be "something".

This is true even if attributes (characteristic, ability, potential or existence, etc.) are considered in their most dilute, microscopic or immeasurable form - and if this were the case, then "nothing" would not really be "nothing"; indeed, it would most definitely be something because it owned at least a "something", thereby making the contradiction that "absolute nothing" has the power (itself an attribute) to own (again, another attribute) something. Therein lies a colossal falsehood: that "absolute nothing" exists with attributes - a real impossibility and contradiction.

"NOTHING" MUST ALWAYS BE WITHOUT ANYTHING AT ALL

"Nothingness" must always be without anything or it would not be "nothingness". Also, it is illogical and irrational for "nothing" always to remain "nothing" because this would be attributing to "nothing" the values of "stability, constancy, consistency, etc", and this again means that "nothing" is not really "nothing" at all but "something with at least a very strong quality". Thus, there is no such thing as "absolute nothing".

So, to say that something can be created out of nothing is an illogical deduction. It is also an unscientific deduction because science makes the claim that matter must come from something - matter cannot come from nothing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we are told by science; and yet many scientists would appear to expect everyone to accept that "something" can be created from absolute "nothing". This is far-fetched thought.

So, if the theory is now going to be based upon matter being created from a "something", be it "antimatter" (which is certainly not "absolute nothingness" because antimatter must have a form of existence in order to exist) or be it energy, then the question asked of these great thinkers, is: From whence came the existence of energy or so-called antimatter? Indeed, from whence came "existence"? "Absolute nothing" cannot beget "Existence" because "nothing" is an impossibility in Reality.

"NON-EXISTENCE" DOES NOT REALLY EXIST

Non-existence cannot beget existence because non-existence can never have existed and can never exist. Non-existence is a concept at best and it can never have existence by definition. Non-existence and absolute nothingness are synonymous, and they remain self-negating intellectual concepts and nothing more. Non-existence and absolute nothingness have no reality.

So where did anything in Existence or True Reality originate? This is a question only answered in a disjointed and fragmentary manner by the Big Bang Theory, founded upon incomplete deduction and the failure to thoroughly consider absolute and relative existence.

"NOTHING" CAN NEVER LIE OUTSIDE THE "SET OF EVERYTHING"

Some of those who call themselves rational thinkers might make statements such as: "Nothing used to exist because nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything". It is necessary to briefly look at this point because of it's apparent authoritative origin which propagates widespread indoctrination.

Firstly, the statement: "Nothing used to exist." is so blatantly illogical and irrational that one wonders how intelligent people could call this an absolute truth. Making such a statement is akin to a child who has not done his homework and yet tells his teacher that he has done it.

If nothing existed then it was never nothing in the first place - it was something. For nothing to have existed then originally it could never have been nothing, it must have been something because it existed. Something which exists can never be absolute nothingness. Absolute nothing must always be without the ability to exist. Absolute nothing can never possess any characteristic or property at all. Absolute nothing must never have any potential, not even the powerful potential to exist. Absolute nothing can never exist and has never existed outside of anything (that is a rational statement).

Secondly, the statement: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is merely a relative observation and is only true when applied within it's framework of reference but ceases to be true outside of that framework and is superseded.

The conclusion that: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is based on terms of reference which are relative and not absolute i.e. it is based on terms of reference from a limited subset of manmade truth (mathematics). Such a relative statement can therefore only provide a relative conclusion but never an absolute conclusion concerning a Reality with a framework of reference which transcends terms of references which deal solely with a material universe.

To say: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is really akin to people of yesteryear using their relative terms of reference to come to the conclusion that the world is flat (a relative truth). Different conclusions perhaps but the terms of reference are within the same set because they do not take into consideration all states and planes of being, merely the physical universe.

In conclusion, by creating nothing when in Reality "nothing" has never existed, the mind is creating both a relative and limited conclusion, and is also creating a false positive.

AFTERTHOUGHT - A BRIEF SPIRITUAL CONTRAST

Here is not the place, perhaps, to expound a comprehensive alternative to the explanation for the creation of life as given by the "Big Bang Theory" (whether there be partial truth in it or not). However, the following is an inadequate and somewhat abridged explanation of spiritual creation, and this is given here simply for balance and contrast to the Big Bang Theory:

Simply put, the Greater World's spiritual explanation for Life, is that there has always been Pure Existence and that that Pure Existence is an attribute of Pure Consciousness, and Pure Consciousness is an attribute of Pure Love, and Perfect Love is synonymous with the all-loving, all-compassionate God (shown through the Greater World's philosophy).

This All-encompassing Love is Perfect, and because Love always wants to give and expand, so It gave out from Itself small fragments of Itself, and to these minute fragments of individual Purity was gifted freedom of will. The working or functioning of these countless billions of freewilled beings in harmony with or against spiritual laws, is responsible for the myriad conditions and spheres which permeate spiritual creation, each condition varying in greater or lesser degree from Perfection.

These 'areas' (or states or planes of existence) are in a state of imperfection according the degree they are "distanced" from that original Perfection (or how far removed they are from Perfection, in greater or lesser degree). The individual continually creates conditions around itself as it interacts with always-existing spiritual laws; the ultimate and inevitable goal being to evolve to a state of complete individual experience whereby freewill will always work in harmony with spiritual laws. But until then, the individual creates for good or for ill, and the conditions are formed accordingly, Perfection being transcendental to all that is imperfect.

EXTENDING MATERIAL REASON

The Neo-Evolutionist need not be too indignant at these assertions. The famous Black Hole Theory, in part, is not ruled out. What is ruled out is that LIFE is not a consequence of a Big Bang. Life has always existed and if there have been intergalactic or inter-universal Big Bangs, these would be but consequences of spiritual involution where that which was once created in purity had devolved to such an extent that chaos was the by-product. The length of time that the earth-plane has been in existence is relatively insignificant in comparison to the duration of the spirals of spiritual evolution and involution which have been in existence since long before the earth-plane came into actual being. The earth-plane has only been in existence for as long as it takes a proper spiritual star to twinkle, as it were.

PERFECTION AND VARYING MEASURES OF IMPERFECTION

It is the soul which, every moment, throws off various forms of creation, and this accounts for the huge variety of conditions, both physical and the many more non-physical ones, but the conditions all being coexistent and intermingling. A thought cannot be stopped because it is individual, and thoughts are literally creating parts of creation in one form or another. These 'creations' may be closer or further away from the original Divinely-created Perfection, according to degree.

REAL LOVE

There is a small thought which needs to be appended to this subject. There are those who attempt to deny the existence and reality of Perfect Love. Their claim is that there is no such thing as unconditional love. They claim that all love is selfish, and the only reason an individual loves another individual is to make themselves happy.

Clearly, these thinkers must be ruled by the intellect to such an extent that reality is obscured. Firstly, it must be remembered that human love is not Divine Love - far from it. And yet, the argument for the existence of Unconditional Perfect Love can be reinforced by examples of the lesser human love.

For instance, although relatively few, there are parents with extremely hurtful children. The parent can spend year after year being hurt on purpose by the wicked child, and yet that parent can feel nothing but love for that child. This parent could not, even with the greatest stretch of the imagination, be said to be loving that child because it makes them happy. Loving that child, in fact, makes that parent unhappy in this circumstance. Loving that child may even bring on deep depression and permanent anxiety. And yet the parent continues to always love that child unconditionally.

This demonstrates, to the aware consciousness, the existence of unconditional love. The love is more than a simple duty, it is embedded in something which is an inherent part of the individual, it is the spirit itself, made of Love, and permitted or denied expression. The inherent love is completely for another, but in the case of some, demonstratively in those who can only perceive love as being selfish, the surrounding layers of self inhibit the purely altruistic nature of pure love, essentially part of Divine Love.

Unconditional love is a fact. That love exists because the unchanging spirit within that soul is a tiny particle of Unconditional Love, and is able to pour through when the deep desire is there to summon that love, and allow its release and expression in the physical world.

Ultimately, it will be noted, the only true happiness that a spirit shall ever be everlastingly content with, is the happiness which comes from the unconditional giving of spiritual love. This then, would be the very reason for existence - to release fully, and become, individually, a fragment of Unconditional Love untainted by the lesser self - journeying through the countless conditions in order to attune ones personality and characteristics to the wonderfully unique spark of individuality thought into being by, and emanating from that immeasurable and immutable Divine Perfection which is Unconditional Love.

NB: For a concise spiritual explanation of the creation of the Earth and the material cosmos through Divine Will, please see this explanation.

Tony Bisson