Why there exist something rather than nothing?

Causality, God’s Nature, and the Absurdity of the Ultimate Question

When we ask, “Why does X exist or occur?” we are essentially asking for the cause behind the effect X. Such a question only makes sense within a reality where causality applies—in other words, a world based on a chain of causes and effects. Physical reality meets this condition. However, if we go beyond it, we must consider that causality may not hold—and likely does not hold—in other realms. God, for example, is absolutely fundamental to all existence and therefore transcends all dualisms and dichotomies.

In a world without causality, one cannot pose questions about a cause corresponding to an effect. It’s logically straightforward. Yet we humans, accustomed to a physical reality where causality is a foundational principle, still ask questions in terms of cause and effect even when confronted with a realm where it does not apply. This is irrational. Reason demands that we accept our objective cognitive limitations.

Is it possible that humanity will one day reach a level of understanding where the nature of God becomes clearer? Perhaps then the manner of His existence would be revealed. But all breakthroughs in knowledge so far have occurred within the context of physical reality. Achieving a breakthrough in understanding God would require transcending the limitations imposed by our existence in a physical world—a world that restricts us to categories of causality, spatiality, and temporality. Furthermore, the Universe forms a horizon we cannot look beyond, naturally limiting the scope of empirical methods. Perhaps one day we can mitigate these two weaknesses, but this is a distant prospect with inherently limited results.

I reject the concept of “causa sui” with regard to God, because it would be applying the logic of causality to a being who fundamentally lies beyond such categories. To say that God is His own cause would imply that He is also an effect. This contradicts my understanding of God as a being beyond time and space, beyond cause and effect, beyond existence and nonexistence.

We cannot directly know the nature of God, so at best we can guess at its general outline. To me, part of this outline is that God exists. I cannot explain how—whether He created Himself, is a necessary being, or something else entirely—I only know that He exists because otherwise the Universe, the Earth, my apartment, and the pen with which I write would not exist. The metareality is not empty. I do not know why, but I must accept this as a fundamental fact.

Therefore, I consider the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” to be improperly framed. Since God is beyond cause and effect, we cannot know the cause of His existence, which would be required for a fundamental answer. However, simply stating as a fact that “there is something rather than nothing” carries deep metaphysical significance.

In other words, when we phrase the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” in causal terms, it becomes “What is the cause of the first cause?” But we define the “first cause” as something that is not an effect. Thus, the question becomes internally contradictory. Attempts to use other terminology fail because the question itself grows out of the concept of causality. As a result, it is absurd.

Sponsored by: Wiadomości giełdowe GPW