In our going concern world, the question of the root of reality is literally foundational -- and yes, we see a now familiar chart yet again (it is that pivotal):
There are of course, several major options, which we need to compare -- knowing that every option will have difficulties, especially as the question is inescapably self-referential (as, manifestly, we are a part of the going concern reality). Nowadays, in the West, evolutionary materialistic scientism is the inculcated and institutionally dominant view, but as Richard Dawkins inadvertently shows, it fatally stumbles in the starting gates . . . over precisely that self-referentiality:
In short, our rational, responsible, morally governed, conscience-guided freedom is critical, even as St Paul observed 2,000 years ago in his AD 57 Letter to the Romans as he interacted with their moral-legal thinking:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . .
So, Dawkins shows us that no proposed reality root can be viable if it fails the Pauline test, conscience-guided, morally governed rationality. (And yes, this gives us an opening to ponder the anthropic question that the root of reality must be such that we are feasible.)
What of the idea -- recently championed by physicist Lawrence Krauss (and yes, the afterword is by Dawkins) -- that the world comes from "nothing"? (Wikipedia summarises: 'The main theme of the book is the claim that "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction." ')
The problem here, when sophisticated mathematical apparatus is removed, is that a genuine nothing, utter non-being, has no properties including existence, much less causal capability (which requires existence . . .). Straining language itself, were utter non-being ever so, such would forever obtain; as there literally would be no thing, no reality able to change that.
No wonder, then, that Wikipedia is forced to admit:
George Ellis, in an interview in Scientific American, said that "Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions." He criticized the philosophical viewpoint of the book, saying "It's very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy."[10]
In The New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he said Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing, since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss.[11]
Notice, the telling comment: "if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss." That is, there is some thing, a quasi physical domain of relativistic quantum fields. That is a physicalist, quasi-spatially distributed zone, sometimes called a quantum foam, in which sub-cosmi bubble up via fluctuations (and being able to fluctuate is a property with causal potential). In short, the prestige and mystique of science solemnly dressed up in a lab coat, is used to try to extend a materialistic world picture beyond the singularity, the big bang. This thus falls under the same self-defeating incoherence we saw from Dawkins.
The suggestion of circular, retro causation is similar. For, the not yet is called upon to be its own source.
We are still left, then, with the roots challenge that if a world now is, something always was; something able to account for our going concern world. Involving, bridging the is-ought gap without self-referential self defeat and the need to rise above GIGO limited computationalism, as a material computing substrate is no better than the mechanical-stochastic result of its programming and given or detected data. involving, that eternal being requires necessary being. That is, entities that are framework to any possible world and cannot not exist, e.g. the number 2 and all its kin. (Try to imagine a distinct world W in which by contrast with another W', 2 does not exist or begins or ceases -- already, just to be distinct 2 and is kin, NZQRCR* etc are already there . . . why Mathematics is universally powerful.)
The serious options on the table, then, must include a necessary being that is causally competent and able to bridge the is-ought gap, founding moral government and Paul's rational, responsible freedom.
That essentially leaves X-theisms on the table. Of such, polytheism cannot answer to the bill of goods, and so we see:
Of these, only ethical theism can soundly address moral government, as is outlined.
So, we come to St Peter's challenge on the eve of his judicial murder on the manifestly false charge of treasonous arson:
2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . .
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
And is we are inclined to disbelieve the 500, that leaves us facing Paul's challenge to Festus, Agrippa et al in open court:
Acts 26:8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? . . . . 25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.”
The uneasy evasiveness of Agrippa's answer speaks volumes. Volumes that echo from AD 39 to AD 2024 and beyond. For, indeed, "this has not been done in a corner." END
