Cause and effect seems to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so the premise that the cosmos was coaxed into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. Conventional wisdom has concluded that the physical presence of the Universe was spawned by some omnificent spontaneous process that somehow transformed the cosmos from a state of non-existence into its present condition of substance and tangibility.

That conclusion is flawed.

Before something can change or be changed - before something can act or be acted upon, it must first exist. Existence is not a condition or a 'state of being', it is being, itself - the primary and most fundamental of all phenomenon. If existence is required in order for change to occur, then the process of cause and effect is derived from the phenomenon of existence. And since a primary phenomenon can't be derived from its own subordinate derivative, any premise that the physical presence of the cosmos is the result of an act or event of creation is obviously contrary to logic.

FLAW #1: Cause and effect is derived from existence, not visa versa.

The process of change involves two basic elements: a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been caused by something. But the inference of a progenitor violates the initial contention that nothing pre-existed creation. And even if you ignore this glaring discrepancy, if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been the product of some predecessor, which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

Flaw #2: The premise of creation resolves into an endless redundancy.

There are, of course, those who would suggest that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in an act of divine inspiration. Contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today.

You may freely choose to ignore the tenets of reason and you may vote to repeal the laws of nature in favor of whatever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to claim that your argument is rational. Once logic and the laws of nature have been suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit.

FLAW #3: Suspending the laws of nature is contrary to logic.

So how do you explain the physical presence of the cosmos?

Cause and effect (change) is a process. Processes are governed by principles. If cause and effect is derived from existence, it logically follows that the nature of existence - the most fundamental of all phenomena - must be based upon a principle, NOT a process.

Such a principle does exist. It is a prevailing dynamic that governs the basic nature of the cosmos. It rules over the process of change. It is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It is a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its influence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its real significance has been overlooked and undiscovered. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lies hidden in plain sight.