God Put A Smile On Your Face.

Man plans, God* laughs...

I'm fond of Scientific Reasoning, and Logic.  They are the mortar to the bricks of reality as I know it.  They are an owner's manual to this corporeal reality.  But they fail.  They completely fall apart; and not at some tricky point in the future, but simply at the point of origin.

Science is built on causal relationships, basic cause and effect.  First comes this, then comes that.  Every step closer we come to the "beginning of the universe" the closer we come to the befuddling reality that existence sprang out of nothingness, or simply out of some other state that preceded it, that we simply chose not to consider part of existence as we understand it.  This defies logic, and requires a certain suspension of disbelief.

Logically, you can't get something from nothing.  "Nature abhors a vacuum." The Universe can't emerge out of nothingness. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, so something had to proceed the Universe in its current state; and if so, what preceded that? Perhaps the Universe cycles from the state it was in prior to our existence beginning and back again in an infinite loop?  But where did this loop come from?  How did that happen?

The only answer at this point, is a cliche, "Que sera, sera."  "It is what it is." "What shall be, shall be." In logic, that's called Circular Reasoning. An example would be an argument like so, "It is that way because that is the way it is." You can't argue with the statement because it proves itself.  This is called a Tautology. You can't refute or defend Circular Reasoning or a Tautological Argument, and as such they are considered invalid arguments and unscientific.

Even though false arguments are frowned upon, it's impossible to avoid asserting one basic Tautology right under our noses, one indispensable for all reasoning, Scientific or Philosophical: The Universe's existence is self-evident by our perception of it.  Even if we accept that as a starting point for our reasoning within the constraints of science and philosophy our perception and understanding of the Universe and Reality is inherently limited.  We live in a room, and there is a door that is closed. To make sense of the room, we have to assume that the door doesn't open. We come to a point where we know and understand the contents of the room like the back our hands, but there's still that door. If it opens, we have no explanation or justification for what lies beyond the door, even if, especially if, it's nothing at all.

If a wise man build's his house upon the rock, what are we if the crux of our scientific understanding of the universe defies logic and sets an arbitrary beginning to existence? The only rectification of that limited understanding of our Universe and its nature seems to require Omniscience, and belief in the concept of Omniscience is generally deemed unscientific and illogical. But what is the aim of Scientific Inquiry & Philosophy if not some measure of Omniscience? Again, when turned upon themselves, logical arguments and scientific reasoning collapse under their own weight, an intellectual black hole.  If so, what constitutes an intellectual white hole?

All of this makes the significance and uniqueness of being alive in the midst of this reality all the greater. There is no greater miracle than having the power to perceive. When I look it that way, the hubris that people have when they speak of Knowing, rather than Accepting an idea about the reality we exist in, I can't help but feel that the joke is on them, as if I'm in on the joke. In reality, the joke's on me too. Better to laugh with, than be laughed at.

*For the purposes of argument, the nature or conceptualization of God is a matter of individual perception of omnipresent omnipotent omniscience, which is in itself a limiting qualification. The irony of that doesn't escape me, it's actually the point.