It appears improbable, indeed impossible, to conceive of something coming out of, or evolving from, nothing. But then does not the theory of the Big Bang in cosmogony claim that, from a speck (a small point) which was just there, came the universe we occupy? Asking what was there before this speck (that is, where did the speck come from) is apparently not a meaningful question. But it is a relevant question.
When someone talks about a creator of the universe, it is not unusual for someone else to ask where this Creator or God came from. That is, who or what was there before? In this instance, such questions are irrelevant, by definition. To ask where the First Cause (as in Christian theology) came from is perhaps like defining the self I as not-I; I am reminded of that famous bird, the dodo.
Ancient writings, those related to the so-called creation myths, indicate to scientist Paul. A. LaViolette, Ph.D. that ‘the various actions or attributes of their main characters are found to portray how the physical world first came into being out of a primordial vital flux.’ This surely is an interesting concept. What the author refers to as the ‘same scientific theory of creation’ is apparently part of the myths from China, India, Sumer, Greece, and Polynesia. He goes on to write that ‘scattered fragments of it appear in the process-oriented writing of Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, and Confucius and in ancient Hindu and Buddhist mystical teachings.’ Since myths often relate to a former reality, would it not be useful to know what reality might lie behind the historical myths of cosmogony?
Thus, the ‘ancient science … theorizes that physical creation has come into being from a pre-existing prime substance or ether, and that space, time and this ether are infinite and virtually immortal … the ancient science describes matter and energy creation as a continuing process … ‘ Would this not be new thinking today?
There we have it – a pre-existing ether. Was it always there? Is it still here? What does modern science have to offer as an alternative approach?
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 