Hi! Thanks for this article! I like your idea of something being eternal, beyond space and time, not needing a prior cause. However, I would challenge your logical conclusion that "absolute nothing" cannot exist. In my view, the reason there is existence is due to such a contradiction or paradox. How can you ponder the "concept" of non-existence if this concept does not exist? How can you use a word like "nothing" if it does not exist? In other words, non-existence is the only thing that cannot not exist, but since non-existence exists, therefore, existence exists. What is nice about paradoxes is that they do not require a prior cause, and their "eternal" feature is linked to the logical nature of their paradoxical characteristic, rather than your way of looking at it: that existence cannot not exist because nothing or non-existence cannot exist. In other words, you're saying existence is eternal because it's opposite is impossible. What I'm saying is that existence and non-existence are intimitely linked in a paradox which is eternal.

Now, with regards to your point about time not having a beginning, there also, I have a problem. As opposed to existence, experience does have a beginning, just not the kind of beginning we are used to. With regards to existence, there is no beginning. But time and experience are intimitely linked. You could say that time is like a feature which lets you experience a tiny slice of existence at a time. But if that is correct, then there IS a beginning to this experience.

And in this regard, I would have to reintroduce the concept of "God", because it is the only way that you can transition out of existence into experience, otherwise you're stuck in a state of absolutes or infinites. Absolute existence, absolute knowing, absolute power, absolute consciousness, etc. In my view, the way you transition from existence to experience, is when a consciousness which is absolute asks itself the only question that would be of "interest" to it: "what would I be if I weren't that which I am?" In other words, it asks what it would be if it wasn't infinite, all knowing, all powerful, etc. Hence your experience right now. You are not infinite, you are not all powerful, you are not all knowing, you are not the person you were a second ago, nor are you already the person you will be a minute from now. Where does the "energy" pushing this entire universe forward come from? What makes time "advance" forward? Why would it advance at a certain pace and not another?

The problem, is people that are Theists, assume that a "God" is like a human, with petty desires and wishes. But in my view, an absolute being or consciousness would have only two characteristics: unconditional love (for itself, since it is all, and it couldn't be any other way, unconditional love for existence itself), and from time to time this curiosity of wondering what it would be if it wasn't what it is, from which spring an infinite "finite" universes, multiverses, etc. And such a being would not "judge" anything. That initial question is enough to explain everything, especially the self-organising nature of the universe. In order to continuously be "not what you are", or in other words, in order to have perpetual change, you need to create certain rules and laws to make experience of "that which you are not" stable and sustainable. Hence the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.