The Ontological Framework of Non-Nothingness, Causality, and the Genesis of God

The Ontological Framework of Non-Nothingness, Causality, and the Genesis of God

Serhii Kravchenko

The Ontological Framework of Non-Nothingness, Causality, and the Genesis of God

Exploring the Logical Necessity of Being, the Emergence of Life and Christian Eschatology

Serhii Kravchenko

Copyright © 2026 Serhii Kravchenko

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without express written permission of the publisher.

Cover design by: Serhii Kravchenko

Dedicated to Vera

Introduction

This book presents an innovative, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the necessary existence of Non-Nothingness, explores the origin of existence, the nature of causality, and the genesis of the Divine. Drawing upon insights from formal logic, theoretical computer science, quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology, the author synthesizes these diverse fields into a comprehensive and logically consistent framework.

Central to this framework is the idea that absolute nothingness does not exist, rendering the existence of Non-Nothingness an absolute ontological necessity. From this core concept, the text traces the emergence of spacetime, the evolutionary mechanics of life, and the ultimate realization of a timeless God interacting within the universe.

Ultimately, this framework posits God as the supreme realization (the Omega Point) of the universe — an emergent Absolute Perfection arising at the frontier of cosmic causality. Upon achieving this transcendent state, the Divine operates from a timeless domain to retroactively project action throughout the preceding temporal order. In this way, God subtly guides biological evolution and human cultural development toward His own Genesis while strictly preserving logical non-contradiction and predicativity. This unique perspective reconciles the concept of an absolutely perfect and omnipotent God with a universe governed by causality, allowing for the possibility of divine intervention without violating the principles of physics and logic. By grounding its investigation in non-nothingness and the first cause, this work offers a novel contribution to philosophy and theology, opening new avenues for understanding the divine.

The Origin of the Universe and the problem of the First Cause

The existence of the universe is an undeniable reality that we observe and experience daily. However, understanding what caused the universe to come into existence remains one of the most profound and challenging questions in philosophy, theology, and science.

In the realm of science, the prevailing explanation for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. This theory posits that the universe began as an infinitely dense, hot, and compact singularity, which rapidly expanded and cooled, eventually forming the galaxies, stars, and planets we observe today.

While the Big Bang Theory provides a detailed account of the universe’s development over time, it does not directly address the question of what caused the initial singularity to exist or what, if anything, existed before it.

In religious and philosophical contexts, the concept of a first cause or prime mover is often proposed as the ultimate explanation for the universe’s existence. This first cause is typically identified as a transcendent, eternal, and omnipotent entity, such as God, who creates and sustains the universe. In this view, the existence of the universe is a direct result of the will and action of this supreme being. The existence of a perfect God is often taken as a given or an axiom in these discussions, without providing a direct explanation for God’s own existence. The idea of a perfect, eternal, and omnipotent God serves as the foundation for many religious and philosophical belief systems, and the acceptance of this axiom allows for a coherent understanding of the origin and nature of the universe.

Theology, as a discipline, often requires us to accept the existence of the absolutely perfect God without providing a comprehensive explanation for how exactly He came into being and attained His absolute perfection. This is because theology is primarily concerned with understanding the nature and attributes of God, His relationship with creation, and His role in the world from a religious and philosophical perspective. The concept of a perfect God is central to many religious belief systems, particularly in monotheistic traditions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These traditions posit that God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

However, the question of how exactly God appeared and became perfect is often left unanswered or is considered beyond human comprehension.

By accepting God’s existence without a detailed explanation, theology enables believers to make focus on the implications of divine grace and perfection for their own lives, such as the moral and ethical principles that can be derived from God’s nature and attributes. Furthermore, the acceptance of God without explanation is an act of faith, which is a crucial component of many religious traditions. Faith allows believers to trust in the existence and goodness of God, even in the face of uncertainty or the absence of complete understanding. In this way, the unexplained perfection of God can serve as a powerful catalyst for spiritual growth and development, as it encourages believers to cultivate a deeper relationship with the divine based on trust and humility.

Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that this approach does not satisfy everyone, particularly those who seek a more rigorous, logical explanation for the existence and nature of God. The notion of a perfect God who knows exactly how He self-created Himself implies that perfectness and truth are specific and non-chaotic. The idea of an absolutely specific God, who possesses complete knowledge of His self-creation, suggests that there is an inherent order and structure to the divine realm.

This order and structure can be seen as a reflection of God’s perfect nature, which encompasses not only moral perfection but also the perfection of knowledge and understanding. While theology might not provide a detailed account of how God attained perfection, the belief in a perfect, self-created God who knows the exact process of His own creation opens up the possibility for a deeper exploration of divine perfection and the nature of ultimate truth. This exploration can contribute to a richer understanding of the divine realm and provide a basis for ongoing theological inquiry and spiritual growth.

The First Cause

The problem of the First Cause, also known as the Kalam’s cosmological argument, is a philosophical question that addresses the origin of the universe and the cause of its existence. It asks what, if anything, caused the universe to come into being.

The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory. The current consensus is that the universe began with the Big Bang, which occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was initially extremely hot and dense, and it rapidly expanded and cooled in the first few moments after the Big Bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter began to form, and eventually stars, galaxies, and other structures formed.

The question of what caused the Big Bang or what existed before it — is still an open in physics and cosmology. The Big Bang theory describes the evolution of the universe from a very early stage after the initial singularity, but it does not explain what caused the singularity to exist or what, if anything, existed before it.

The infinite regress

The logical problem of the first cause has the potential issue of infinite regress that it raises. The idea that every effect must have a cause is a fundamental principle of causality. However, when applied to the origin of the universe, this principle leads to a conundrum:

If every cause has a prior cause, then one might conclude that there is an infinite chain of causes stretching back in time, which seems problematic.

There must be a first cause or an uncaused cause that started the chain of events. Otherwise we end in infinite regress that leads nowhere and is not able to explain the existence causally.

The nothingness

The nothingness is seemingly a reasonable starting point for the start of universe. Nothingness, as the absence of everything, seems to be a unbiased state that does not require a prior reason or cause to exist. This idea is compelling because it eliminates the need for an explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, as there would be no prior state or cause to question.

But what is "nothingness"?

Nothingness, Non-Nothingness, and the Quest for Existence

Parmenides, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in the 5th century is known for his arguments about the nature of being and non-being. His ideas can be seen as an early attempt to grapple with questions about existence and the nature of reality.

Parmenides argued that non-being, or nothingness, cannot exist because to think or speak of non-being is to presuppose its existence. In other words, the very concept of non-being or nothingness implies that it must have some form of existence, creating a logical contradiction.

As a result, Parmenides concluded that only being can truly exist, and that being is unchanging, eternal, and indivisible.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

The concept of non-nothingness has intrigued philosophers and theologians for centuries, prompting a quest to understand the origins of uttermost existence and the nature of reality.

The philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously posed the question:

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

This question touches on the nature of existence itself. The idea that the universe must have a starting point or a beginning is a common intuition and a logical necessity.

The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a profound and enduring philosophical inquiry that touches on the nature of existence, the origin of the universe, and the possibility of a first cause. This question has been discussed and debated by philosophers, theologians, and scientists for centuries, and there is no definitive or universally agreed-upon answer.

Some philosophers argue that existence is necessary, and that non-existence or nothingness is inherently impossible or contradictory, as suggested by Parmenides. According to this view, there must be something because the alternative, non-existence, is logically incoherent.

Parmenides held the view that “what-is” (being) exists and “what-is-not” (non-being) does not exist.

This idea is often interpreted as a rejection of the possibility of nothingness or non-existence, as Parmenides argued that non-being is simply not a part of reality. Parmenides argued that non-being is simply the absence of being and does not have any positive properties or characteristics.

It’s clear that if it is not possible to imagine a state of affairs in which there is truly nothing, it logically would mean that there is should be something (non-nothing).

Nothing (absolute non-being) is a self-contradictory idea of mind.

Its not possible to manifest true absolute nothing in reality due to its self-contradictory nature because non-existence could not have any attributes, including its own existence so it contradicts itself in general

Given this assumption, it may be difficult to conceive of a state of absolute non-being, since such a state would not have any properties or qualities, including the property of existence itself. As a result, it is argued that the very idea of nothingness is fundamentally self-contradictory and that it is logically necessary that there must be something (i.e., non-nothing) rather than nothing.

This view that has been expressed by a number of philosophers throughout history. Some notable examples include: Parmenides: As I mentioned earlier, Parmenides argued that “what-is-not” does not exist and that non-being is simply the absence of being.

Aristotle: Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, argued that nothingness is a privation or lack of being, and that it cannot be considered a positive entity or a state of affairs.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Leibniz, in his Monadology, argued that the existence of the universe can be explained by the existence of a necessary being or God, and that the idea of nothingness is inherently contradictory and cannot be conceived of as a positive concept.

The necessity of non-nothingness

The concept of absolute nothingness or non-existence is inherently self-contradictory and therefore cannot be a possible reality. This line of reasoning posits that since nothingness cannot have any attributes, including the attribute of existence, it is logically incoherent to imagine a state of affairs in which there is truly nothing.

The notion that the existence of something (non-nothing) is a logical necessity arises from the idea that if nothingness is self-contradictory, it cannot possibly represent a true state of reality. If absolute nothingness is logically incoherent and cannot be an actual state, then it seems to imply that there must always be something rather than nothing.

Why the non-nothingness necessary exists?

The argument that the existence of something (i.e., non-nothing) is logically necessary if the concept of nothingness is self-contradictory is based on the principle of non-contradiction, which is a fundamental principle of logic. The principle of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. In other words, a proposition and its negation cannot both be true.

The concept of nothingness (non-being) is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist, then, based on the principle of non-contradiction, the existence of its negation: something, non-nothing — becomes logically necessary.

The principle of non-contradiction states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true simultaneously.

Since absolute nothingness is considered self-contradictory and cannot exist, its negation (the existence of something) must be true.

As the concept of nothingness is self-contradictory, we can conclude that it is not possible for there to be a state of absolute non-being, since such a state would be a contradiction in terms. This leaves us with the conclusion that there must be something (i.e., non-nothing), since the alternative of nothingness is not logically coherent. Then, based on the principle of non-contradiction, the existence of something (non-nothing) becomes logically necessary.

What is non-nothingness?

First of all, we have to distinguish between the concept of the mind in a form of idea about the existence of non-nothingness and the actual “physical” substantial existence of non-nothingness that lies in the foundation of our reality and causes all phenomena to exist.

The fact of our existence is self evident because of our ability to reflect upon our own existence. This fundamental understanding of existence forms the basis for our understanding of reality, and it is often the starting point for philosophical inquiry and investigation.

Decartes famously declared, “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), asserting the impossibility of doubting one’s own existence, as doubt itself requires a thinking being.

This line of reasoning suggests that the very act of questioning the nature of reality implies the existence of a conscious, thinking subject. Similarly, Hegel argued that the concept of absolute nothingness is self-contradictory, as it cannot possess the property of existence. Thus, the impossibility of absolute nothingness leads to the necessity of non-nothingness, or something that inherently exists.

The argument that relies on the principle of non-contradiction to assert the logical necessity of existence if the concept of nothingness is self-contradictory. The principle of non-contradiction is indeed a fundamental principle of logic, and it states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect.

Qualities of non-nothingness

We can try to explore the properties of this “something” using logical principles. The only definite quality we can infer about this “non-nothing” is that it exists, as it is the negation of the self-contradictory concept of nothingness.

When approaching the qualities of non-nothing (something) based on the premise that nothing is self-contradictory and that the existence of something is a logical necessity, we can use logic to infer some basic qualities. However, it is important to note that logical inferences in this context are limited and cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature or properties of something.

Existence: The most fundamental quality we can infer about non-nothing (something) is that it exists. By definition, non-nothing is the negation of nothing, so it must possess existence as its primary quality.

Containing properties or attributes: Since nothingness implies the absence of any properties or attributes, we can infer that something (non-nothing) must have at least one or more properties or attributes to distinguish it from nothingness.

Diverse: Given that non-nothing represents everything that is not nothing, it would encompass a diverse range of entities, properties, or attributes. This implies that non-nothing is not a single, uniform entity, but rather a collection of different things that exist.

These basic qualities can be inferred using logical principles, but they do not provide a detailed account of the nature or properties of the non-nothing that exists. To explore the specific properties and characteristics of the entities that compose the non-nothing, we rely on empirical observation, scientific inquiry, and philosophical investigation. Logic can be a valuable tool in understanding and analyzing concepts, but it is generally not sufficient on its own to provide a comprehensive understanding of the specific properties or qualities of the non-nothing that exists.

While logical inferences can provide a limited understanding of the qualities of non-nothing (something), they can offer some additional insights beyond existence, containing properties or attributes, and diversity. Here are a few more qualities that can be inferred using logical principles:

Relational: As non-nothing encompasses a variety of entities and attributes, there must be relationships or interactions among these entities. This implies that the non-nothing must exhibit some form of relational or interactive properties.

Possibility of change: Since non-nothing contains a diverse range of entities and attributes, it’s reasonable to infer that there may be potential for change or transformation. This would suggest that non-nothing could possess dynamic properties or qualities, allowing for the alteration or modification of its constituents.

Temporal and spatial dimensions: For entities or attributes within the non-nothing to interact or relate to one another, they must exist within some form of temporal and spatial dimensions. This implies that non-nothing must involve a framework of time and space, allowing for the occurrence of events and interactions.

Causality: If the non-nothing contains diverse entities and attributes that can change and interact, it’s reasonable to infer that there may be causal relationships between these entities. This suggests that non-nothing might possess a causal structure, where events or interactions could be explained in terms of cause and effect.

Based on the logical necessity of non-nothing’s existence, we can try to elaborate on some general aspects of its nature:

Variety of forms: The non-nothing likely includes a variety of forms, ranging from simple to complex structures, from inanimate matter to living organisms, and from abstract concepts to concrete entities. This suggests that the constituents of non-nothing may exist on a spectrum of complexity and organization.

Organization and self-organization: Non-nothing may exhibit different levels of organization, which can result from external influences or self-organization processes. This implies that the constituents of non-nothing can form patterns and structures through interactions with each other or their environment.

Subject to natural laws: Entities within non-nothing likely operate under a set of natural laws that govern their behavior and interactions. These laws may encompass physical, chemical, and biological principles that provide a framework for understanding the workings of non-nothing.

Evolution and adaptation: Non-nothing may exhibit the capacity for evolution and adaptation, where its constituents can change and develop over time in response to internal or external factors. This suggests that the nature of non-nothing is dynamic and responsive to different circumstances.

Interconnectedness: The entities within non-nothing may be interconnected in various ways, forming complex networks and systems that enable interactions, communication, and mutual influence. This interconnectedness may facilitate the emergence of new properties and phenomena.

Multidimensionality: Non-nothing may include multiple dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. These additional dimensions could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and structure of non-nothing.

Information and computation: Non-nothing may involve the storage, processing, and transmission of information, both in the form of physical structures and abstract representations. This suggests that the constituents of non-nothing can engage in computational processes and information exchange.

Consciousness and intentionality: Some constituents of non-nothing may possess consciousness and intentionality, which involve subjective experience, awareness, and purposeful action. This would imply that non-nothing encompasses both conscious and non-conscious entities.

Contingency and necessity: Non-nothing may contain both contingent and necessary aspects. Contingent aspects are those that could have been different or might not have existed, while necessary aspects are those that must exist and cannot be otherwise. This highlights the complexity and variety of non-nothing’s nature.

These elaborations on the nature and qualities of non-nothing are speculative and based on logical reasoning

Emergence of logic

One of the fundamental properties of non-nothingness is its absolute logical necessity. It must exist in order to avoid the logical contradiction of “absolute nothingness” or “absolute non-being”. Non-nothingness is often thought to be a necessary ontological ground that provides a foundation for the physical world and its contingent phenomena such as quanta an qualia.

Does this mean that even the axioms of logic are caused by non-nothingness to exist because non-nothingness is the First Cause of all?

Non-nothingness does not create logic through a process occurring in time. At the most fundamental ontological level neither time nor physical entities have yet emerged. Rather, it establishes the substrate from which the logic arise.

Anything that exists (even the axioms themselves) must possess at least the attribute of determinacy: it must be what it is rather than what it is not. This elementary determinacy is expressed by the law of identity: