Jud Evans

T he very act of posing such a question makes it problematic and in a sense rather painful to answer, for sadly only those incapable of understanding the deterministic dénouement that follows would moot such meaninglessness in the first place.

     I do not mean this in any hurtful, personal way, as a longer cyber-personal acquaintance with my attitudes to what I perceive to be the obvious will reveal – I report as I understand the world and what it contains – simply as a statement of fact - my ontological bark is louder than my personal bite.

     My belief is that we are born into this world either WITH or WITHOUT certain systemic neural capacities, and that there are some who are congenitally incapable of resisting and throwing-off or overcoming the effects of the transcendentalist indoctrination they are exposed to with their mother's milk in early life. The result is that certain centres of the neurological reticule are utterly and permanently damaged in the handling of questions of ontological understanding.

     One of the most difficult concepts for the dysfunctional religious and the transcendentalist brain to comprehend [a defectiveness I have long believed has a genetical origin associated with the transmission and defective copying of genetic information] is the inability to grasp the fact that nullificatory terms like ‘nothing or nothingness’ are utterly meaningless. They are genuinely unable to perceive the lack of "Klarheit der Darstellung" when they speak of 'Nothing.'

     They ramble on about 'nothing' as a 'cognitive tool' with which to contrast and compare 'something,' without comprehending that they are dealing with an uncontrastable and incomparable non-spanner in the non-ontological non-ontic works.

     This suggests some form of linguistic, semantic or even grammatical mental handicap [well demonstrated in the refugee from the Heimat and philosophical buffoon Heidegger] as well as problems of basic logical processing. The imbecility of the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo founders on the physical truism that no such state is possible in the first place. The God of the Semitic desert Bedouin is an ontological, and cosmological redundancy. Matter is eternal and ubiquitous, and 'nothing' is but a figmen in the minds of onanistic monks of the Middle Ages.

     If ‘nothing’ magically and theosophically existed in place of ‘something’ then it itself would be ‘something’ and not ‘nothing,’ for the replacement or substitution of the material with a putative ‘let's pretend’ non-material, is no more than the sort of ritualistic fantasy that takes place on the altar of the houses of human intellectual degradation we call ‘churches when cannibalistic manductions and of ingestations of wine as 'let's pretend' human blood is served by golden ornamented priestly carnal-cocktail barmen in womanly skirts who discretely wipe the glass-rims with heavenly germicide between customers.

     That we that apprehend have to share the world with such fellow human beings, and suffer the disruption, evil, wars and general unhappiness that is part and parcel of what happens in connection with, or as a concomitant of such neurological damage, is the non-Jesuitical cross that atheists have to bear.

      For me it is rather like sharing the planet with neurological aliens – for true and sincere concilience is an impossibility with such fanatics, and there is nowhere to escape, one cannot [nor does one wish to] eliminate them, and one is forced to make the best of a bad job – to compromise as much as one's intelligence allows, to bear the slings and arrows of the religious outrage against common-sense, and try to sure that one is as unaffected and uninjured as possible by their unspeakable evil and try to ensure that one's family, friends and dear ones do not suffer too much from their insufferable and ubiquitous detrimental presence. That IS NOT to say that many of them are good company, stimulating and highly intelligent and personable like you – it is just to say that the is a deep unbridgeable rift – an uncrossable chasm of human sensibility.

      The study of the Universe has revealed it to be expanding. Tracing its history of expansion backwards for billions of years leads us to a moment when densities and temperatures became so infinitely tremendous that the forces exerted inexorably resulted in what we call 'The Big Bang,' Backtracking before this event is impossible, for all the material evidence as to how causal objects existed antecedally to this cosmic event were destroyed. The ontological footprints in the sand have been washed away by the tides of the ocean of the existential imperative. This leads us to consider the serious possibility that there may have never been a beginning at all and that the whole concept of ‘beginnings and endings' are anthropocentric notions originating in the fact that we perceive our own transient presence here on earth as being an experiential anthropocentric template that we attribute to the whole cosmos. Talk about being self-centred! Human self-centredness in relation to the universe is not something new of course, and it wasn't long ago that anyone suggesting that it was the earth that revolved around the star we call the sun, rather than vice-versa was in great danger of being burnt alive. The religious or transcendentalist mind is inimical and hostile to cosmological actuality because its truths conflict with the internalised fantasies and infantile stupidity of the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo that take the place of logic in the blemished neurological meaty meshwork of the mal-programmed carnal grey matter they mistake for 'mind.'

It took hundreds of years before a reluctant Vatican came to terms with the fact that even its naďve sheep had finally accepted the fact of a solar centred universe and issued a reluctant apology to the long dead Galileo.

If the expansion we call The Big Bang was an initial beginning rather than a cyclical phase in the way that the cosmos exists as an alternatively contracting and expanding entity, then we have the right to ask if this 'beginning' was simply the start of the expansion of the Universe that we see today, or was it the inception in every sense, of the entire physical Universe? And, if it is the latter, does it include all the matter and energy in the Universe, and if that is so is what we erroneously think of as ‘space’ actually a part of the entire material fabric of that which exists to?

The cosmos has always existed and is an infinite causal object which has not, does not, and will never require another antecedal causal object to initiate and ring the bells of its eternal entiatic change - the cosmos is its own nidus - its own prime mover.