The quest for the unmoved mover and the force behind creation has led to the concept of God. Is this a logically traceable path?
No, indeed, I do not have an answer for the origin of energy, which is not nothing but seeing that I have to attend to this question whatever path my theory takes, I would, first, lay my cards on the table. The fascinating thing for me is that if we go far back enough, we should, logically, come to a point when there was nothing, perhaps, absolutely.
Now, I cannot subscribe to a Universe that came from nothing because that is ridiculous nor can I subscribe to a creating God because, among other things - some of which I shall deal with later, it is more difficult to create God (and we have to) than to create the Universe.
So I turn to Nothingness as the base and foundation of all reality - visible and invisible, material and immaterial - where Nothingness is not nothing but simply the absence of reality and the ever present potential for becoming. Well, this is my theory.
This is energy - perhaps at a level more base than even the zero-point energy of scientists, as pure potential and a negative reality that could never not have been. Does this totally wipe out all claims to and for supernatural reality? It sure does look like it because while we have science to test what we can lay hold of and logic to deduce that which we cannot, the supernatural has proved elusive to both well-springs of our knowledge, expressing itself as the subjective experience of individual minds.
I believe that all reality is knowable and within reach of the human experience which is why I am only prepared to go as far back as energy for the origin of things. Any claim to the contrary that some reality might not be knowable would be admitting knowledge of such unknown reality and its trait of "unknowability".
In essence, I did reach some conclusion that could be labelled as the five A's:
All reality is knowable
All precise reality is known, deductible and obvious
All general reality is elusive
All general unknown "reality" is object of research
All precise unknown "reality" is imagination
Until it is known or deductible and/or obvious, it cannot be categorically termed "real"; of course, that is no claim that it is certainly unreal but a claim that it is the object of research as long as no precise definition of its attributes, traits or functions has been arrived at before the results of research show it to be so.
Therefore the only precisely defined reality we know should have been made explicit by research; any other is simply imagination. Every unknown reality under research such as the cure for some illness cannot have a precise enclosed definition and, thus remains a general reality - elusive. No general reality can be known; any known reality has to be precise. At least, that is what I can logically work out.
