Suessical Theory of How IT ALL began

Science, Philosophy, and Theology all can argue their theories of the beginning of the Universe. I was pondering one of my favorite writers, a philosopher of sorts, who never claimed to be a scientist. I think he may have had a way to explain the beginning of it all, if asked. With apologies to Theodor Suess Giesel, I present:

‘Suessical Theory of How IT ALL began’

Everything began with some thing, there had to be a thing.

Thing One or Thing Two, the universe to bring.

Thing One is one choice as well as Thing Two.

The First we Call ‘No Thing' the second, ‘Some Thing’, how about you?

‘No Thing’ had properties of nothing; no space, time, or matter.

‘Some Thing’ quite the opposite, it had it all to scatter.

You must decide which ‘Thing’ it was that began it all.

A thing with nothing or one that could speak, move a mountain, or roll a ball.

Silly, I grant you, but recently on Greg Koukl’s podcast ‘Stand to Reason’ he made the observation that ‘everything’ must come from either 'no' thing or 'some' thing. I thought that this was a good way to put it into a very simple argument, to boil it down to its most basic elements (the essential essence, if you will). He distinguished between ‘no' thing as opposed to ‘nothing’ as the latter has taken on a different meaning in scientific circles (I know, it seems ridiculous that ‘nothing’ no longer means nothing, I guess we can always blame the argument about “what ‘is’ is?”).

As I was reflecting on Koukl’s perfectly boiled down argument, I was struck by how it really is even simpler, it can be taken one step back, it would seem. Instead of starting at ‘no thing’ or ‘some thing’, as Koukl did, I thought (and this is where Dr. Suess comes in) it really is about the ‘thing’ at the beginning, just ONE THING! The question is, what was the ‘thing’? It seems ludicrous (not to mention illogical) to believe that everything exists in an eternal cycle of universes spinning out from a ‘multi-verse generator’. Koukl also used an illustration of a wife arriving home to find a brand new car (with her husband’s name engraved on a personalized plate) in the garage to have her husband claim it ‘poofed’ into existence from ‘nothing’. Things don’t ‘poof’ into existence, they are caused, everything has a cause, if it came into existence.

William Lane Craig is a great proponent of the ‘Kalaam Cosmological Argument’, which is this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-best-of-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4Eqe8OcYl).

Craig’s argument for premise 1 is tight, “Now premise (1), I think, seems obviously true; it is at least more plausibly true than its negation. First and foremost, the premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being out of nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic. It is to quit doing serious philosophy and appeal to magic. Secondly, if things could come into being uncaused from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn’t come into being uncaused from nothing. Why doesn’t root beer and Beethoven and bicycles just pop into being uncaused out of nothing? And finally, thirdly, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience. We have the strongest of motivations therefore to accept the first premise.” (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-best-of-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4Eqf4xqHt)

Our ‘Suessical Theory’ rests in this first premise. I can’t get my mind around the idea that anyone could believe (have faith, if you will) that the universe could come from 'no' thing or nothing. Take for example, “Finally, even if a “First Cause” is probable, this doesn’t mean we have proven that God exists. A mere “First Cause” that has apparently done nothing more than cause the Big Bang hardly seems to warrant the label “God.” It isn’t necessarily worth worshipping, revering, or even giving much thought to…” (http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm). Obviously, according to this site, the “First Cause” doesn’t have to be the Christian ‘God’. My ‘Suessical Theory’ is not arguing this point either. WE are just boiling it down to basics, what is the ‘thing’ in essence; 'no' thing or 'some' thing. Though I would question anyone’s idea that a first cause so powerful was not worthy of worship seems…well…silly.

Suddenly, from a car in a garage to a universe, we are to believe the laws of logic, physics, and common sense get suspended. A sincere atheist will admit this problem, “A first cause, however, would have a completely different relationship to time. So different, in fact, that we have to admit that the universe cannot be said to have a cause in the ordinary sense of the word.” (http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Le-Poidevin-Must-the-universe-have-a-cause.pdf). No, the ‘thing’ that begins it all could not be ‘ordinary’. For it would have to be outside time, space, and matter. The ‘no thing’ thing, if you believe it was the cause of everything, has to account for the same things the ‘some' thing cause does. In other words, the ‘no' thing has NO time, space, or matter, nothing at all, until it does, see. It seems a HUGE leap to believe that everything (which is time, space, and matter) came from nothing, or ‘no' thing.

It is simplistic, to be sure. This is one of the things that drew me to Dr. Seuss as a child, the simplicity of his words. There was a whimsical feeling, too. You felt as if you were drawn into a world of ‘Whos’, Cats in Hats, and Thing One and Thing Two. Dr. Suess wasn't trying to be a theologian, me thinks, as he brought into our lexicon these two characters. I think you must decide, form a belief, with your mind open, to what makes the most sense. The beginning of it all can be boiled down to a ‘thing’, science can take us so far, philosophy a little farther, but theology can only get us to the ‘beginning’. I’ll let you decide what makes the most sense, what has “the best explanatory powers,” as Dr. Craig often says. I’ll tell you what, while you do that I think I’ll go fishing, “one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish…”

#universe #apologetics #DrSuess