Among existence there is no magic or metaphysics. Only the natural and illusions.
The universe is boundless in time because cause always precedes effect, and that effect then leads to another cause. Therefore if an effect needs a cause to occur, and an effect then leads to another cause, then doesn't that mean the cause and effects leading to the present are infinite? If nothing can violate this law doesn't that mean cause and effect have been going on for eternity and will continue to go on for eternity?
Also doesn't this conclusion essentially invalidate the freeze death theory? If cause and effect have been going on for eternity then how can the universe have a linear lifetime? If all the energy of the universe was concentrated to a single point then started expanding, then what caused the energy to be concentrated there? What was the cause and effect preceding that event? Due to the logical inconsistency of this theory it's unlikely to be true. Rather the alternative Cyclic Model (particularly the Steinhardt-Turok model) of an oscillating universe is much more likely. That the universe undergoes self-sustaining cycles of expansion and contraction.
Nothing can violate the rule of cause and effect.
Anything that appears like it ascends beyond cause and effect and into "probability" is simply a illusion. It isn't "random," rather a system that appears random instead contains a long strain of small cause and effects too complex for human comprehension or merely out of sight from human perception (like a magic trick).
Life exists because enough causes aligned in a certain point in the vast universe to produce the effect of life. Because cause and effect cannot be avoided this event wasn't random, meaning it was going to happen, but it also wasn't caused by a "prime mover" (planned by a creator.)
Therefore if cause and effect is an infinite chain, then there was never a prime mover to begin the first cause. A philosopher that lead me to this conclusion was ironically Evola. In Evola's entire works nothing has struck me so profound as his analysis of Gods. That in ancient mythology there were lesser Gods of "becoming" that pertain to linear mortals while higher Gods of the aristocracy were Gods of "being." Where there existence is because it is. Of being. Perhaps the infinite strain of cause and effect can be interpreted to be a passive "God" that resembles the ancient Anglo-Saxon pagan concept of Wyrd (or fate). Or perhaps one can interpret this to mean that God himself is infinite and the inherent nature of existence is his will incarnate.
However I must note that even though I ascribe ascribe to the first belief, I have to admit romanticizing scientific concepts is an attempt to justify a faltering belief system and an appeasement to dying metaphysics.
This concept of "being" is the basis of our existence. Through our limited observation we deduce that existence itself must have a beginning and an end because mortal humans have a beginning and an end. However both of these are an illusion. The energy/matter that makes up humans cannot be created nor destroyed, and therefore always existed. Meaning humans are arranged and disarranged. When you die your matter is merely scattered back into the universe where it will give form to other systems of existence. We are born because through the harnessing of energy and the allocation of matter our mothers and fathers constructs us to continue life and sedate their inherent instinct of procreation.
I wish I could right more and explain the self fulfilling purpose of life and our inherent needs, but I don't have that much time. Though I'm happy to say that life, existence and our perceptions can all be perfectly rationalized. Absolute truths can be found.
Please argue, criticize, and contribute.
