There is no such thing as first or second,
or as cause and effect. Humanity has
constantly searched for the beginning of things asking questions such as 'Which
came first, the chicken or the egg?". They search for answers which are simply
entangled in a never ending cycle of events.
Belief before evidence or evidence before belief, it doesn't matter. Both compound a cycle where before belief
there's evidence and before evidence there is belief and so on.
If the mind teaser about the chicken and
the egg is traced back to its beginning, for example taking the generations and
going back on time, there will come a point where the beginning of things will
be put under observation. How did things
begin? Scientists believe that our world
began with the Big Bang, yet for the Big Bang to originate there must have been
the Sun and the Universe itself. Then
what was before the Universe? An
atom? And before the atom? The word "nothing" is a common answer
to these questions, supposedly ending the infinite quest for knowledge. Yet before the "nothing", there
must have been something else, maybe more nothingness, who knows? The fact simply is that humanity doesn't know
what came first and have thrive to come up with answers which range from the
scientific point of view to the religious.
The religious answers, which are completely based on belief, used to be
entirely accepted by people, but as science began to flourish, scientific
answers, which use logic and reasoning, became the primary source for
belief. Now a days it is important to
have evidence in order to believe. Yet
when scientists discover new things, do they just find the evidence? Or they believe that something is there and
begin their quest to find it? Again, be
it one way or the other, it doesn't matter.
Let's take for example that the scientist believed that something was
there, his/her belief must have been based on evidence. How else then could
they have thought about it? Yet that evidence
in return, before being discovered, was based on belief and so on.
It is all a cycle indeed. One cannot say which came first. The beginning of things will always be an
unknown if humanity keeps searching for it.
There is no beginning. The cycle
causes effects which in return cause causes which cause effects. In a family where there is constant fighting,
problems are the result of other problems and so on. One would have to trace all the way back to
see what or who was guilty from the beginning.
The same applies to the search for the beginning of times. In order to stop the fighting one would have
to stop the cycle. Everyone in the
family would have to forget passed events and start all over, from the
beginning. Yet because no such thing as
completely forgetting exists, someone would again do a misdeed that would spark
the fighting chain. The world is a
sphere which rotates without stopping.
Once it stops, the cycle of never ending cause and effect keeps on
going. As a new begging takes place, the
cycle would be rotating. It would be the
same cycle, not a different one. The
destruction of our world would indeed cause the beginning of another; if the
present world had never been destroyed then the new one would never have been
formed.
A counter argument to the idea of a never
ending cycle would easily be disregarded.
One can say that the cycle must have been put into motion by a force as
objects on earth are given a force to begin their motion. Yet that cycle would not be the same
one. The never-ending cycle of cause and
effect, of belief or evidence, of first
and second, goes beyond all parameters.
It is the cycle itself which causes everything. It would be the cycle which would cause the
force to put a smaller cycle into motion.
The cycle is an entity in itself.
It has always been and will always be.
Therefore, belief or evidence, are the
result of one another. One caused the
other which in return caused the other.
Both are part of the cycle and will remain as part of it forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment