Gary Larson in his work illustrates wonderful perspectives (I wilt at the idea of speculating about his cosmology). His cartoon, “God makes the snake”, implies a commonly held view: the Universe as some sort of diorama. Mr. Larson has this creator of his modeling snakes of clay and thinking they’re a cinch. Be it by creation or happenstance, many or most assume the view that the Universe does in fact exist as matter and space. And it may - but that’s a different question than I will examine here. Here, I hope to share my own simple, intuited, cosmological proof of God/Creation by assuming the Universe does exist in some manner, which most ought to grant as given, then questioning how. I haven’t looked deeply into it but I understand there are some similarities between this argument, which I call “The Argument from Infinity”, and Aristotle’s cosmological view, and Spinosa’s. This precise idea has almost certainly been uttered.
The Argument from Infinity
If one takes the view of the Universe as some sort of Newtonian, Einsteinian or Whateversnextian happenstance, then the infinity ponderable is quite the question. I’m no expert at mathematical modeling but I don’t believe there is an infinity of space that’s comprehendible for us in that way. There are other, I think more reasonable views, such as assuming infinity and or creation/happenstance do not exist in the manner that we have habitually or assumptively modeled them. I feel that’s something of the jab in Gary’s cartoon.
Infinity is a paradox, and by extension so is space altogether. Even limited, finite space must be differentiated from non-space or non-existence somehow, so the question remains in any “diorama” model, infinite or not, creation or happenstance: how? From where, and how, have space and matter come into being? Existence’s existing is a problem. All questions are ponderable of course but many are only that, in this instance I think the “why” and “where-from” are much less probable to get results from than the “how” is, so "how" is mostly what I’m concerned with arguing.
The answer I posit to this “how” is perception: Our perceptions are of realities that are not absolute in form, from another point of perception these things do not “exist” as they do here; at that point of perception they are not fundamental realities.
An obvious example of this sort of thing is our dream activity. In dreams we move through space, touch objects and feel them as solid, ourselves as moving, yet to one observing our sleeping body in which we feel our dreams, the reality of our dreams’ existence isn’t apparent. It’s not a fundamental reality to everyone though it’s perceived as real by the dreamer.
If we choose the view that three-dimensional space does in fact not exist as physical space somehow carved out of non-being - as if made of clay - but instead is merely perceived as existing, as if we are here together in a dream, then the paradoxes of infinite space and space carved out of nothing are not created. Space isn’t infinite or carved out of nothing - it is perceived to be. This view does suppose and is dependent upon a dreamer, a Universal Dreamer or Creator of some sort; and though making this supposition doesn’t solve all the problems of existence’s existing it’s my belief this is the most rational explanation for our perceptions considering the paradox of its being . This idea is in part revealed by a joke I read years ago:
Man, having reached a place where his science and technology can do all that in his more primitive days he’d attributed to God, decides that he no longer needs a God, so Man challenges God’s superiority and necessity in a contest.
God shows up, and the contest begins. God reaches down and grasps a handful of dirt, and sculpts the dirt into a little Man, then breathes life into it.
Man says, “No problem, with my science and technology, I can now do all of that too.” He reaches down and grasps a handful of dirt...
God speaks up, wags his finger, and says, “Ah-ah-ah. Get your own dirt.”
I’m not interested in [intentionally] blaspheming the Divine, but if I could speculate about the matter imagining what might be Its perspective, if I (as It) chose to create existence, it would make more sense to me to do so as a dream, as a mental exercise (admittedly, a fearsomely awesome meditation!), than it would to do so as a sculpture then “made live”. This avoids paradox, but in my estimation it makes little difference whether it’s the "dream made flesh" or (somehow) "dirt made flesh" - because in either case the question “from where has it come?” remains. So I believe that the dream model is most reasonable answer, and since it supposes a dreamer I take this as an argument lending weight to proof of one. Can anyone explain another way to “Get your own dirt”?
Questions are like legs on caterpillars - there’s always another behind the one you’re on. If the question “from where have space and matter come and how?” is answered by “from a Universal Dreamer through Its perceptions.” , then the question “from where has this Universal Dreamer come?” remains unanswered. Still, I think the dirt’s existence attests to the Dreamer’s. If you accept this argument then it’s true and has implications in four and more dimensions too (time does not fundamentally exist either but is also a creation of the Dreamer) but they’re not necessary to make the point.
There are other suppositions arrived at through this premise, not the least of which is that all that exists (currently, to us anyway,) is part of the Dreamer, so we and everything else here are all related. So far, my favorite personal derivation regarding this line of thinking is “If there is really - no one there -, there is no tree, and there is no woods”.