First Cause – Harmonia Philosophica

The beginning of life. The beginning?

Geologists in Ireland have rewritten the evolutionary history books by finding that oxygen-producing life forms were present on Earth some 3 billion years ago — a full 60 million years earlier than previously thought. These life forms were responsible for adding oxygen to our atmosphere, which laid the foundations for more complex life to evolve and proliferate. (1)

The origins of life continue to go further and further into the past.

And this is more logical than you might imagine.

We are determined to find out when life started.
We like to believe life started one specific date.

As if life could at some point NOT be.
As if something can be created from nothing.

Search your feeling deep.

Nothing “begins”.
We just Are.

First Cause vs. String Theory, M-Theory 1-0

People look at modern scientific theories like the String Theory of the Membrane Theory (M-Theory) and call them “elegant”. They praise Science for having these “excellent” examples of innovative thinking and look upon the scientists who first formulated them. But how blind can a person be?

How can you look at theories demanding 11 dimensions which you do not have yet seen, or multiple Universes which you will never see and tag them “elegant”? If these are elegant theories, then how do the “not elegant” theories look like? It is really funny to know that the same people who name these theories “elegant” and “simple” and the same people who refuse to accept the simplest idea of all: that the cosmos has a (First) Cause…

Some times simplicity is right in front of our eyes, but we refuse to look at it.

Science, Beliefs, Antinomies…

You ask for others to “prove” what they say, but yet the only thing which is certain in your science is that nothing can be proven (call me Gödel)…

You cannot accept the possibility of a First Cause for the cosmos, but you can accept the possibility of multiple paraller universes which cannot interact with each other…

You cannot accept the possibility of a theory which has the notion of “design” as integral part and you believe in the role of “luck” (call me statistics) in the laws of physics, but on the other hand you continually design new things and you continually search for laws which deterministically (not randomly) govern Nature…

You cannot accept the possibility of consciousness being something immaterial, but yet you accept the existence of immaterial notions like “fields”…

You try to beat death, but you cannot yet define what “life” is…

You cannot accept the possibility of a purpose, but yet everything you do have one…

You are full of antinomies…

And you are too blind to see it…