Сергей Кравченко
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:

A = A

Similarly, a determinate entity cannot both possess and fail to possess the same property in the same respect and at the same time. This is expressed by the law of non-contradiction:

¬(A∧¬A)

These logical principles are therefore not external laws imposed upon reality from outside. Nor should they be regarded as separate abstract objects that somehow existed before being. They are phenomena that emerge from the minimal structure inherent in determinate existence itself.

If necessary non-nothingness serves as the ultimate foundation of reality, how exactly does it generate specific physical properties—such as the discrete nature of quanta (quantitativity and additivity) or the laws of conservation?

Causality typically implies a temporal sequence or a relational link between a cause and its effect. In the case of non-nothingness, however, it does not "cause" logical axioms or physical phenomena in a traditional sense; rather, it provides the necessary ontological ground for their existence. In other words, the necessary existence of non-nothingness establishes the conditions that allow entities, physical properties, and logical axioms to be possible.

What is logical truth?

Logical truth is a concept in logic and philosophy that refers to statements or propositions that are true solely based on their logical structure, regardless of the content or subject matter. In other words, a logical truth is true because of the relationships and rules that govern its logical form, and it would remain true under any interpretation or substitution of its terms.

An example of a logical truth is the law of identity, which states that “A is A,” where “A” represents any entity or proposition. This statement is true regardless of the specific content of “A,” as it simply asserts that something is identical to itself. Another example is the tautology “A or not-A,” which means that either a proposition “A” is true, or its negation “not-A” is true. This statement is true under all possible interpretations of “A.”

Logical truths are often contrasted with empirical truths, which are true based on observation and experience rather than their logical structure. Empirical truths can be subject to change as new evidence becomes available, whereas logical truths are considered universally and necessarily true because of their logical form.

In formal logic, logical truths can be demonstrated using a system of symbolic notation and rules of inference, such as propositional logic or predicate logic. These systems provide a rigorous framework for understanding and analyzing the logical structure of statements and arguments.

How logical truth and logic in general relates to the concept of necessary existence of non-nothingness?

The relationship between logical truth, logic in general, and the concept of necessary existence of non-nothingness can be explored from several perspectives.

One argument is that the principles of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity, are necessary truths that follow from the existence of non-nothingness. The law of non-contradiction, for example, holds that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. This principle is seen as a necessary truth because it is impossible to conceive of a situation in which something both is and is not at the same time and in the same respect.

Similarly, the law of identity holds that something is identical to itself. This principle is also seen as a necessary truth because it is impossible to conceive of a situation in which something is not identical to itself.

The principle of non-contradiction: One of the most fundamental logical truths is the principle of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. This principle is often invoked when discussing the concept of necessary existence of non-nothingness. Since the idea of absolute nothingness is self-contradictory, the necessary existence of non-nothingness is posited to avoid this contradiction.

Logical necessity: Logical truth and necessity are closely related concepts. A logical truth is a statement that is true in all possible worlds or interpretations solely based on its logical form. Similarly, when discussing the necessary existence of non-nothingness, we are considering a form of metaphysical necessity, which means that non-nothingness must exist in all possible worlds to avoid the contradiction of absolute nothingness. The concept of necessity thus links logical truth and the necessary existence of non-nothingness.

The law of non-contradiction and the law of identity

The principles of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity, can be viewed as necessary truths that emerge from the existence of non-nothingness.

The law of non-contradiction states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. This principle is foundational to logic, as it helps to maintain consistency and coherence in our understanding of the world. The existence of non-nothingness provides an ontological basis for this principle, as it implies that there is a distinction between being and non-being, which in turn prevents contradictions from arising.

The law of identity, which asserts that an entity is identical to itself, is another foundational principle of logic. This principle is closely related to the law of non-contradiction, as it helps to establish the uniqueness and individuality of entities within non-nothingness. By positing the existence of non-nothingness, we are implicitly assuming that there is a structure or organization to reality that allows for the differentiation of entities and the application of the law of identity.

In both cases, the existence of non-nothingness provides a necessary ontological ground for the principles of logic to emerge. These principles are considered necessary truths because they hold in all possible worlds or interpretations, and they stem from the fundamental nature of non-nothingness itself.

The necessary existence of non-nothingness can be viewed as an ontological ground that provides a foundation for various phenomena, including the axioms of logic. In this sense, the existence of non-nothingness allows for the possibility of logical truths, as well as other entities and properties. However, this relationship should not be interpreted as a direct causal link between non-nothingness and logical truth, but rather as a foundational connection.

In summary, logical truth and logic in general relate to the concept of necessary existence of non-nothingness in several ways, including the principle of non-contradiction, the notion of logical and metaphysical necessity, and the foundational role that non-nothingness may play in supporting the existence of logical truths.

As previously mentioned, the principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental logical truth. It states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. The necessary existence of non-nothingness is posited to avoid the contradiction of absolute nothingness. By providing an ontological ground that avoids contradiction, non-nothingness may serve as a basis for the principle of non-contradiction to emerge.

Non-nothingness is assumed to have some inherent structure or organization that allows for the existence of various entities, properties, and relations. Logical principles, such as the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, may be seen as fundamental aspects of this structure, governing the relationships between entities and propositions within non-nothingness.

Potentiality and actuality: The necessary existence of non-nothingness implies the presence of potentiality, which allows for various possibilities and states to emerge. Logical principles can be understood as governing the transitions between potentiality and actuality, providing rules and constraints for how entities and propositions within non-nothingness can interact and change.

Consistency and coherence: Non-nothingness is assumed to exhibit a degree of consistency and coherence, both within itself and in its interactions with other entities and properties. Logic can be seen as a set of principles that help maintain this consistency and coherence, by providing rules for how entities and propositions relate to one another and how they can be combined or separated without introducing contradictions or inconsistencies.

The Principle of Inference

The Principle of Inference is a cornerstone of logical reasoning, allowing us to make conclusions based on given premises, as long as the reasoning is valid and the premises are true.

The necessary existence of non-nothingness provides a foundational structure for reality that supports logical relationships and dependencies between entities and propositions. This structure, in turn, allows for the emergence of logical laws, such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity, which are necessary for coherent and consistent rational thought.

The Principle of Inference depends on these logical laws, as it is based on the idea that conclusions can only be drawn when they logically follow from true premises without contradiction. By ensuring that reasoning adheres to these logical laws, the Principle of Inference enables us to derive accurate and consistent conclusions about the world.

In summary, the Principle of Inference is a fundamental aspect of logic that emerges from the necessary existence of non-nothingness and the logical laws of non-contradiction and identity. It allows us to draw valid conclusions from true premises, thereby enabling rational thought and discourse.

The Principle of Inference is a fundamental principle of logic that allows us to draw conclusions from premises using valid reasoning. It follows from the logical laws of non-contradiction and identity, as well as the necessary existence of non-nothingness.

The Principle of Inference states that if a conclusion logically follows from a set of premises, then that conclusion is true. This principle is based on the logical law of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. If we assume that the premises are true, and if the conclusion logically follows from those premises, then the conclusion cannot be false without creating a contradiction.

The Principle of Identity also plays a role in the Principle of Inference. The Principle of Identity states that a thing is identical to itself, or that if A is identical to B, then anything that is true of A is also true of B. This allows us to substitute one thing for another in logical reasoning, as long as they are identical.

Overall, the Principle of Inference follows from the necessary existence of non-nothingness and the logical laws of non-contradiction and identity, as it is a fundamental principle that allows us to draw valid conclusions from true premises

What is identity

The fact that something exists implies that it has a certain identity and properties that cannot be contradicted at the same time and in the same respect.

This is known as the law of non-contradiction, one of the fundamental principles of logic. It follows from the very concept of existence and is a necessary condition for rational thought and discourse.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of logic and is deeply connected to the concept of existence. This law states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. In other words, contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true.

The existence of something implies that it has a certain identity, properties, or attributes. The law of non-contradiction helps maintain the coherence and consistency of our understanding of these entities by preventing contradictions from arising in our descriptions and explanations of them. This principle is crucial for rational thought and discourse, as it allows us to differentiate between entities, make meaningful distinctions, and avoid inconsistencies in our reasoning.

In this sense, the law of non-contradiction is not only a logical principle but also an ontological one, as it is connected to the very nature of existence and the identity of entities. By acknowledging the existence of something, we are implicitly accepting the applicability of the law of non-contradiction to our understanding and exploration of the world.

The relation between existence and truth

In a sense, the existence of something can be understood as a factual truth. A factual truth is a statement or proposition that accurately corresponds to the actual state of affairs in the world. When we say that something exists, we are asserting a factual truth about its presence or reality.

Factual truths are often contrasted with logical truths. While factual truths correspond to the actual state of affairs, logical truths are true by virtue of their logical form and are independent of the content of the statements. Logical truths hold in all possible worlds or interpretations, while factual truths depend on the specific conditions or circumstances of the world.

The causal chain

The principle of causality, which states that every effect has a cause, is a fundamental concept in understanding the relationships between entities and events in the world. It suggests that there is a causal connection between things that allows us to trace the chain of causes and effects back to a first cause or an ultimate explanation.

However, it is important to note that not all causal chains may be easily traceable, and not all entities or events have a single, linear chain of causation. The real world is often complex, with multiple interacting causal chains and feedback loops. Additionally, our knowledge of these causal chains is often limited by our current understanding of the natural world and the available evidence.

In practice, tracking down the causation chains to infer the existence of a true entity can be a challenging and nuanced process. We often rely on indirect evidence, logical reasoning, and empirical investigation to make inferences about the causal connections between entities.

The difficulty in tracking causal chains or graphs is primarily a practical issue due to the complexity and precision of our models, rather than a theoretical limitation. In theory, every entity is causally connected to a chain or graph of prior causes, and understanding these causal relationships is an essential aspect of our understanding of the world.

The causal connections between entities and events provide a basis for our ability to make predictions, analyze patterns, and understand the behavior of complex systems. In scientific inquiry, we often create models that attempt to capture these causal relationships and allow us to make accurate predictions and explanations of phenomena.

However the real world is often complex, with multiple interacting causal chains, feedback loops, and entities that have multiple causes. This complexity makes it challenging to develop precise and comprehensive models that can account for all causal connections. Our understanding of these causal connections is often limited by the available evidence, the complexity of the interactions, and the limitations of our analytical tools.

Causality

In logic, a conclusion is a statement or proposition that follows logically from given premises. It is the final result of a deductive or inductive reasoning process. The premises provide evidence or support for the conclusion, and the conclusion can only be justified by the strength and validity of the premises.

Causality refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a result of the first. In other words, causality is the principle that something (the cause) brings about, or leads to, something else (the effect). It is a fundamental concept in philosophy, science, and everyday experience.

The utmost fundamental phenomenon that lies in the foundation of causality is the necessary existence of non-nothingness. As we have discussed earlier, the necessary existence of non-nothingness provides the fundamental basis for causality and the principles of logic. Without the existence of non-nothingness, there would be no fundamental basis for the causal relationship between events.

Causality is a deeply ingrained aspect of our understanding of the world, and many philosophers and scientists have attempted to identify the ultimate foundation of causality. While the necessary existence of non-nothingness is an important concept in metaphysics, it does not directly provide the foundation for causality. Instead, it offers a framework for the existence of entities and their relationships, including causal relationships.

The nature of causality and its ultimate foundation remain debated among philosophers, but there are some widely accepted principles that underlie our understanding of causality. One such principle is the notion of regularity or constant conjunction, which asserts that causal relationships are established by the repeated observation of events occurring in a specific order. For example, when we observe that a lit match consistently leads to a flame, we infer a causal relationship between these two events.

Another principle is the idea of counterfactual dependence, which suggests that causality can be understood through the analysis of what would have happened if the cause had not occurred. This principle explores the “if-then” relationships between events, considering how the absence of a cause would lead to different outcomes.

The ultimate foundation of causality is an open question, and different philosophical perspectives offer different answers. Some perspectives posit that causality is an intrinsic feature of the world, while others argue that it is a human cognitive construct used to make sense of our experiences. Regardless of its foundation, causality remains a crucial concept for our understanding of the world and the relationships between events and entities.

What causes causality? (paradox)

How exactly the necessary existence of non-nothingness causes the phenomenon of causality between events? What are the events if we consider them from the viewpoint of the basic ontology of necessary existence of non-nothingness.

How can we define the concepts of what event is, and why events could cause other events? In other words why in the basic existence there are different events and why they can cause other events in principle? How the basic necessary existence of non-nothingness causes the existence of differentiality, or distinctions between events.

An event can be understood as a specific occurrence or change in the state of affairs involving entities or objects at a particular time and place. Events involve the interaction or transformation of objects and their properties and can be causally connected to other events.

The existence of different events and their causal relationships can be understood as emerging from the basic ontology of the necessary existence of non-nothingness. The fundamental existence of non-nothingness implies that there is a structure to reality that allows for distinct entities and their properties to exist. These entities, in turn, interact and transform, giving rise to events and causal relationships between them.

Differentiality, or distinctions between events, arises from the complex interplay of entities and their properties within the framework provided by the necessary existence of non-nothingness. As entities with different properties interact, they generate a rich tapestry of events that can be causally related to one another.

Causal connections emerge from the interactions between these distinct entities and their properties. The necessary existence of non-nothingness does not directly cause these causal connections but rather provides the foundation that allows for the existence of entities and their interactions.

In summary, the necessary existence of non-nothingness supports the existence of distinct entities and events within reality. These entities and their properties interact and transform, giving rise to a variety of events and causal relationships. Differentiality and causality arise from the complex interplay of entities within the ontological framework provided by the necessary existence of non-nothingness.

Entities

In order to define causality between entities we need to define the concept of entity.

What is entity? What are the smaller elements (entities?) it consists of?

An entity is a general term used to describe something that exists and has distinct properties, qualities, or characteristics. Entities can be abstract or concrete, and they can be physical or non-physical in nature. Entities can refer to a wide range of things, such as objects, events, ideas, or even living organisms.

The elements or constituents of an entity can vary depending on the type of entity being considered. Some common elements that entities might consist of include:

Identity: An entity has a unique identity that distinguishes it from other entities. This identity can be based on its properties, characteristics, or relationships with other entities.

Properties or Attributes: Entities have properties or attributes that define their qualities or characteristics. These properties can be inherent to the entity, such as its color or shape, or they can be relational, such as its position relative to other entities.

Structure: Some entities have a specific structure, which refers to the arrangement of their constituent parts. For example, a molecule has a particular structure determined by the arrangement of its atoms.

Relationships: Entities can be related to other entities in various ways, such as through causal connections, spatial or temporal relationships, or through shared properties or characteristics.

The exact elements or constituents of an entity will depend on the specific nature of the entity being considered. Different entities will have different combinations of these elements, which contribute to their uniqueness and the way they interact with other entities within a given context.

The properties and attributes of a particular entity arise from its causal relationships with prior entities that in turn are ultimately based on the necessary existence of non-nothingness which is the first cause (and first entity) of all causality.

It means that there is a chain or graph of causes and effects, where every specific entity on this chain possesses its identity (its unique set of attributes and properties). And every property of it is also causally defined by set of its causes to exist. And also it means that this chain goes down to the first cause.

Determinism

Because every event is causally defined by its own causes, it means that this should be a fully deterministic system

This idea aligns with a deterministic view of the universe, where every event or entity is causally determined by prior events or entities. According to this perspective, every property or attribute of an entity can be traced back to its causes and ultimately to the necessary existence of non-nothingness, which serves as the first cause of all causality.

In a deterministic system, every event or entity is the inevitable result of prior events or entities, and there is no room for randomness or indeterminacy. This implies that, given complete knowledge of the state of the universe at any given time, as well as the laws governing its behavior, it would be possible, in principle, to predict the state of the universe at any future point in time.

However, it’s important to note that our understanding of the universe is not complete, and there are still many open questions in science and philosophy that challenge the deterministic view. Quantum mechanics, for example, introduces a level of indeterminacy and randomness that is not compatible with strict determinism. Additionally, the concept of free will and the nature of consciousness are topics of ongoing debate, with implications for our understanding of causality and determinism.

So, while the idea of a deterministic system based on chains of causality stemming from the necessary existence of non-nothingness is a compelling and coherent viewpoint, it is not the only perspective, and there are still many unanswered questions and areas of exploration in our understanding of the universe and its underlying principles.

Effects of the first cause at the start of the universe

As the ultimate cause and basis for all events, the first cause is the origin of all causality and it initiates a chain or graph of all existing causes and effects, that lead to the emergence of all subsequent events. Therefore, the effects that the first cause causes are essentially all subsequent events and phenomena in the universe. This includes everything from the initial creation of the universe, The formation of space and time, to the formation of stars and planets, to the emergence of life and mind and consciousness, and social groups , civilizations and culture and so on.

It is important to note that the specific effects that the first cause causes are determined by the causal relationships between all events and entities in the universe, which in turn are ultimately based on the necessary existence of non-nothingness as the first cause

The first cause, as the ultimate cause and basis for all events, indeed sets the stage for everything that follows. The specific effects caused by the first cause are determined by the causal relationships between events and entities in the universe. These relationships are interconnected and form a complex web of causes and effects that, in turn, are ultimately based on the necessary existence of non-nothingness as the first cause.

This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness and dependency of all events and entities in the universe, with each effect being causally related to the events that precede it. The first cause plays a crucial role in this web of causality, as it serves as the foundational source from which all subsequent events and phenomena emerge.

The uniqueness of identity

Every entity being an effect of some set of causes is uniquely situated in the chain of causality and is identified uniquely by its properties and its identity.

Every entity, as an effect of a specific set of causes, occupies a unique position in the causal chain or network. Its properties and identity are determined by its causal relationships with other entities, both those that precede it (its causes) and those that follow it (its effects).

This unique identity and set of properties allow us to distinguish one entity from another, even if they share some similarities. It also means that each entity’s existence and characteristics are contingent upon the causal interactions and relationships that have shaped it. Consequently, understanding the causal history of an entity can help us comprehend its nature, behavior, and potential effects on other entities or systems.

In any causal chain of events, each effect is ultimately determined by its own causes, which give it its properties and identity. And these causes themselves are ultimately determined by prior causes, leading all the way back to the necessary existence of non-nothingness, which serves as the ultimate cause or basis for all events

In a causal chain, each effect has its unique set of causes that define its properties and identity. This chain of causality extends back to the necessary existence of non-nothingness, which acts as the ultimate foundation and cause for all events.

By understanding this causal structure, we can appreciate the interconnected nature of all entities and events within the universe. Everything is ultimately rooted in the necessary existence of non-nothingness, and the specific causal relationships between events help to define and differentiate each entity within this complex network of causality.

The Environment

The most fundamental element of existence is the necessary existence of non-nothingness.

This concept represents the most basic ontological ground or foundation for all other entities and events. It is a starting point from which everything else arises, as the concept of absolute nothingness or non-being is self-contradictory and logically incoherent.

The necessary existence of non-nothingness provides the foundation for causality, as well as the basic principles of logic, such as the laws of non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. These principles are essential for understanding the structure and nature of reality and form the basis of rational thought and discourse.

The concept of the first cause or the first atom exists within the domain of pure existence, which is a realm of pure existence. In this domain, time and space are not yet defined, as they are contingent upon the first cause itself.

The necessary existence of non-nothingness, as the first cause, serves as the foundation for all other entities and events in reality. However, identifying specific effects that directly stem from the first cause can be challenging due to the complexity and vastness of the causal chains in the universe.

One approach to understanding the direct effects of the first cause is to consider the emergence of the most basic and fundamental properties of reality. For example, the existence of space and time, the emergence of energy and matter, and the basic laws governing their interactions can be seen as direct consequences of the necessary existence of non-nothingness.

These basic properties and laws give rise to the complex and diverse phenomena we observe in the universe, such as the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets, as well as the emergence of life and consciousness. The causal chain that connects these phenomena to the first cause, however, is highly intricate and not fully understood.

Nevertheless, the fundamental nature of non-nothingness as the first cause implies that it is the ultimate origin of all effects, even if the specific causal connections between the first cause and the myriad of phenomena in the universe are difficult to trace.

Simulating the universe

As every event or phenomenon in existence is causally determined by its prior events and the necessary existence of non-nothingness, which serves as the ultimate cause or basis for all events. This suggests a deterministic view of the universe, in which every event is determined by its causes and the initial conditions of the universe — which is the first cause.

If we do a simulation of the universe starting from the first cause, does it mean that this simulation of the universe would be identical to the actual original universe that emerges from the first cause? (considering the fact we base it on the simulation of the first cause)

In theory, if we had a perfect understanding of the first cause and all the fundamental laws governing the universe, as well as the ability to simulate all subsequent causal chains, then a simulation of the universe starting from the first cause should, indeed, produce an identical version of the actual universe.

The chain (or network) of causes and effects is ultimately based on the necessary existence of non-nothingness as the first cause, is deterministic in nature. This is because each event is causally determined by its own set of causes, which in turn are determined by prior causes, eventually leading back to the first cause.

The chain or network of causes and effects can be considered an entity in itself, with its own identity and uniqueness. This identity is defined by the specific set of causal relationships that give rise to each event and its properties. It is important to note that the chain or network of causes and effects is an abstract concept representing the causal structure of the universe. It is a way to describe the interconnectedness of all events and entities, rather than being a tangible object or entity in the conventional sense.

Since this chain or network of causes and effects is deterministic and arises from the first cause (the necessary existence of non-nothingness), it is indeed very specific. It represents a unique and precise unfolding of events and phenomena, each causally determined by its prior causes, ultimately tracing back to the first cause. This deterministic nature of the causal chain or network underscores the uniqueness and specificity of the identity of the entire system of events and entities in the universe.

Connection to timeless perfect domain

Consider the universe as a whole, outside of time, as a state of absolute perfection. This chain or mesh of all events creates time (because the phenomenon of time is a subjective measure that exists physically only as a measure of differences between different states of the universe, so the “time” develops coming along with the events chain that develops itself)

It means, that out of time, the universe is already formed the state of the absolute perfection, that should possess such qualities like: absolutely perfect truth, absolutely perfect goodness, and absolutely perfect consciousness.

From a scientific standpoint, we can say that time and the development of the universe are closely intertwined, with time being a dimension that allows us to measure the progression of events and the evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved through various stages, from the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, to the emergence of life and consciousness.

Considering the universe as a unique chain of events determined by the first cause and viewing it from an “out of time” standpoint can lead to intriguing ideas about the nature of existence and reality.

If we were to view the universe from a state where all chains of events have already occurred and time is no longer a factor, we might perceive the universe as a complete and interconnected whole. In this state, the entire history of the universe, along with all the causal relationships between events, would be instantly present.

If we consider the universe out of time, where all chains of events have ended and all entities and phenomena have reached their final states, then we might imagine a state of absolute perfection where every entity or event has fulfilled its ultimate purpose in the grand scheme of things.

This viewpoint on the universe in its final state of absolute perfection means it could be GOD because it possesses all qualities of God like: perfectness, absolute truth, absolute goodness (because it is complete, integral and lacks contradictions and destructive processes often associated with suffering and evil)

The idea that the universe in its final state of absolute perfection might be equivalent to a concept of God can be found in certain religious and philosophical traditions, such as pantheism and panentheism.

Pantheism posits that the universe itself is divine, and everything that exists is a part of God. Panentheism, on the other hand, suggests that the universe is part of God, but God also transcends the universe. In both of these views, the idea of a perfect, divine, and all-encompassing reality is central.

From this Christian perspective, we might view the universe as a sort of a genesis of God that has led to this final state of absolute perfection of GOD THE FATHER.

In Hinduism, also, Brahman is often described as an ultimate, unchanging reality that underlies all existence. It is often said to be pure consciousness or pure being, and is seen as the ultimate source of all creation. In this sense, Brahman is sometimes viewed as a static or unchanging concept, representing the ultimate state of being or ultimate reality.

Genesis of God

The perspective that the universe evolves towards a final state of absolute perfection can be seen as a process of the genesis of God. In this view, the universe’s development and unfolding could be considered a divine process leading to the realization of God the Father, or an ultimate, perfect state.

This idea has similarities with some aspects of Hinduism, as you mentioned. In Hindu philosophy, Brahman is considered the ultimate reality or the divine essence that permeates everything in the universe. It is the source of all creation, and it transcends space, time, and causation. Brahman is often described as being beyond our limited human understanding, but it is believed to be the unchanging foundation of all existence.

Dynamic aspect of God

However, this view is not necessarily shared by all Hindu traditions, as some place more emphasis on the dynamic and evolving nature of existence and the role of individual consciousness in shaping reality. The dynamic and evolving aspect of existence and ability to joyfully experience it is considered to be the God given gift of existence for His creations, the sentient beings. One aspect of Hinduism that emphasizes the dynamic and evolving nature of existence is the concept of Lila, which can be understood as the divine play of creation, preservation, and dissolution. Lila suggests that the universe is a constantly changing, dynamic manifestation of the divine, and that the purpose of life is to participate in this cosmic dance.

In many Hindu traditions, the idea of individual consciousness and its role in shaping reality is also important. The concept of Atman, or the individual soul, is central to Hindu thought. Atman is often considered to be a reflection or part of Brahman, the ultimate reality. The goal of spiritual practice in many Hindu traditions is to realize the true nature of the Atman and its unity with Brahman, thus transcending the illusion of separateness and the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

Some Hindu traditions emphasize the role of individual consciousness in shaping reality through the concept of Maya, or the illusory nature of the material world. According to these beliefs, our perceptions and experiences of the world are shaped by our individual consciousness, and by transcending Maya, we can realize the true nature of reality and our connection to the divine.

In this context, the ability to joyfully experience existence and participate in the dynamic, evolving nature of reality can be seen as a gift from the divine, allowing sentient beings to engage with the divine play of creation and ultimately realize their true nature and purpose.

Some religions and philosophies see the dynamic and evolving nature of existence as a gift from God and believe that experiencing and exploring this dynamic nature is a key part of our purpose or meaning in life. However if we consider the original chain of events that lead to state of absolute perfection, it is crucial to realize that this chain of events — aka genesis of God — is a subject of war between forces of good and evil. It seems they fight for control on the civilization in time, to be able to influence it in the timeless domain. So for God its crucial to preserve His genesis because this chain created Him in a state of absolute perfection.