The problem of existence is simply the question, "Why does something exist, instead of nothing?"
Most religions pose God (or gods) as a solution to this problem. But to claim that a deity created the universe is an incoherent notion. Allow me to explain:
Einstein proved that space and time are not abstractions, but rather are real, physical, malleable things. It is also agreed upon, whether you believe in the Big Bang or the creation event, that there was a t=0 event where time was first set into motion. I will not entertain the notion that these points are in question.
Now, causality is a shorthand way of saying, "The rules of the universe act on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time." Here, a system is a region of space and time, and all of the particles of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things therein; a state is a specific arrangement of matter, energy, and etcetera within a system. So, nothing actually happens "because of causality" but rather because of laws acting on matter in a system of space-time. I think we can all agree that this is what causality is observed to be. If you want to propose some other form of causality, you must first explain explicitly what exactly it is, and then secondly you must demonstrate that it actually exists.
It is now quite apparent that causality requires space and time to already exist in order for it to act. In fact, there is no alternate form of causality that one can pose in which this is not the case. Therefore, since there is no "before" the t=0 event, which is to say that "before" this event there was no clock that could tick and no ruler that could measure, it follows that the t=0 event necessarily occurred without a cause. Therefore it is incoherent to say that a deity provided the "first cause" because such a first cause was not necessary or even possible. If you want to believe in a deity that can perform logically absurd tasks, such as creating a one-ended line, then there is no reason to exclude the possibility that logically absurd things can occur without a deity (if you are not bounded by logic, then possibility is not bounded).
This explanation is quite unavoidable. Regrettably, this does not solve the problem of existence, nor does it explain how or why the t=0 event actually occurred. These are problems that have plagued mankind for all of our existence, and we simply have not solved them yet (and these things might be unsolvable with unlimited technology). But the fact of the matter is that this explanation is correct.
Most religions pose God (or gods) as a solution to this problem. But to claim that a deity created the universe is an incoherent notion. Allow me to explain:
Einstein proved that space and time are not abstractions, but rather are real, physical, malleable things. It is also agreed upon, whether you believe in the Big Bang or the creation event, that there was a t=0 event where time was first set into motion. I will not entertain the notion that these points are in question.
Now, causality is a shorthand way of saying, "The rules of the universe act on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time." Here, a system is a region of space and time, and all of the particles of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things therein; a state is a specific arrangement of matter, energy, and etcetera within a system. So, nothing actually happens "because of causality" but rather because of laws acting on matter in a system of space-time. I think we can all agree that this is what causality is observed to be. If you want to propose some other form of causality, you must first explain explicitly what exactly it is, and then secondly you must demonstrate that it actually exists.
It is now quite apparent that causality requires space and time to already exist in order for it to act. In fact, there is no alternate form of causality that one can pose in which this is not the case. Therefore, since there is no "before" the t=0 event, which is to say that "before" this event there was no clock that could tick and no ruler that could measure, it follows that the t=0 event necessarily occurred without a cause. Therefore it is incoherent to say that a deity provided the "first cause" because such a first cause was not necessary or even possible. If you want to believe in a deity that can perform logically absurd tasks, such as creating a one-ended line, then there is no reason to exclude the possibility that logically absurd things can occur without a deity (if you are not bounded by logic, then possibility is not bounded).
This explanation is quite unavoidable. Regrettably, this does not solve the problem of existence, nor does it explain how or why the t=0 event actually occurred. These are problems that have plagued mankind for all of our existence, and we simply have not solved them yet (and these things might be unsolvable with unlimited technology). But the fact of the matter is that this explanation is correct.
