How we came to be?

[Shostakovich]

Expedition wrote that there can be no answer to how we came to be. I disagree entirely. I have a "Causal Argument" that answers the question by proposing the series that preceded the Big Bang. It does not amount to what philosophers call an 'infinite regress.' By incorporating the universals of space, time, mass, and mind (though 'mind' is not used in this argument in its practical -everyday sense), it is possible to formulate four a priori principles that account for the origin of spacetime, mass, and mind. One however must be open to the subject of metaphysics; and this argument is serious. It took thirty years to think out and understand. It's also a universal, objectively valid, philosophical solution to the question. However, it requires some serious reflection. If anyone is interested in taking the challenge on of reading this argument, and raising the level of debate here, I'd be glad to make the argument available. Give me some ideas or feedback.

[Belinda]

Shostakovich, I wonder if your theory takes into account that mind may be considered to be a function of the nervous systems of complex animals the evolution of which depends upon factors that include the pre-establishment in time of the Big Bang.

Kant's synthetic a priori functions of mind which I understand to be causality, space and time are therefore also dependent upon the pre-establishment in time of the the Big Bang.

If it is a fact that the 'synthetic a priori-ness' of time is a nervous system function, this is not a sufficient fact to disprove that the objective reality of the Big Bang at the beginning of time is not an objective fact, although neither is it sufficient to prove that time is all in the mind.

I look forward to your theory.

[h15yu8]

I too would very much like to hear your theory for a couple of reasons. There is much in ancient literature which could be used to support a variant. Also, the limits and fallacies of science are well documented.

[Akhenaten]

If its the Dogon I will be sad.