It's probably just a crazy thought, but could circular reasoning be reasonable when it comes to existence? I'm going to expand on that, but not before acknowledging that some problems with this hypothesis that I didn't think through may be pointed out by someone more knowledgeable or imaginative than me. Also, I haven't really heard anyone talk about existence in these terms. I realize that may be a sign that it doesn't make that much sense, but it could also mean that I just didn't hear anyone talk about it, even though some could have.
So, why circular reasoning? Well, perhaps it's not as stupid as we think it is. Of course, when we talk about chronological events, it seems kind of meaningless, but what if we're not. What if we're talking about nothing, not as in the absence of matter, or space-time, or energy, but actually nothing. People ask how could something come out of nothing, but what if something is bound to come out of nothing? What if everything that is hypothetically possible is bound to come out of nothing? And I'm not talking about Hawking's new book here, in which he explains how universes can occur due to some laws of physics. I'm talking about the existence of these laws too. Actually, they wouldn't have begun at any point, but just always existed because there is no alternative; nothing is impossible to exist.
I know it doesn't make sense so far, but hopefully I will manage to change that a bit in the next phrases. To do that, I will go back to circular reasoning. So, let's say that we could have literally nothing. The problem, in this case, with something existing is the first cause or set of causes that puts the rest into motion (for the purposes of this discussion I will stick with a set of causes, no matter how big, because I don't think it would matter how many causes there are). The problem with this set of causes is that it wouldn't have been triggered by anything. But, like in circular reasoning, what if it's triggered/caused by the events it, in term, caused. So, A causes B which causes C which causes A (A, B, C are each a set of events/causes). Of course, this can go on and on, but there has to be a set of events, caused in a causality chain by the first set of events, which, in turn, cause this first set. I know it's confusing, but that's why it's circular reasoning and not normal reasoning. Continuing, I'd ask how could an event be caused by the event it caused. Well, it couldn't... that's if these events happen in a world where time exists. But we're talking about nothing here, not even time. So, in a way, everything happens at the same time. Wouldn't it be impossible for these sets of causes not to exist if they are self-contained and make sense, as in everything is determined/caused by something and nothing exists without a cause? If that's true, then every combination of these sets of causes that would determine events that would, in turn, cause them, would exist. If a set of causes can't be caused by the events it triggers, then that set of causes would simply be impossible to exist.
So, according to this ad hoc idea of mine, the world we are living in (that means what ever multi-verse or meta-universe there is besides the known universe) it's just one of those possible, if not imminent, combinations. Also, if it were true, then, simply put, everything that is hypothetically possible it's real, even if not in our circular chain of events.
Finally, for clarification, if this were to be true, then there wouldn't be any actual first set of causes, just like in a circle there is no start point. I hope I wasn't too confusing with my explanation. I'm talking about causality here, but not like in a straight line where an event is caused by a previous event, but like a kind of circle or closed loop, where there is no start or end point.
Again, it's just a crazy idea I developed lately, but I want to hear what you think of it. I also realize there is no scientific basis for it, but a purely logical one. And it denies the possibility of an ultimate creator, not that it would need any more denying.
I do NOT claim that all, or even some, of what is written above is either fact, probable or even reasonable, as I find it extremely confusing myself. My only concern is to share this idea and hopefully get some clarification to tip the balance of reason one way or another. I also apologize if confusion occurred during your reading of this post.