Acknowledging both origination from nothing and a True Tree of Life is contradictory (meaning that it lacks a consistent solution)

If there is something in this world that has originated, then this thing must have originated out of nothing, because if it has originated out of something, then all things must have originated out of something (ie, this something must also have originated out of something, which must also have originated out of something, and so on infinitely), and then all things must moreover have originated out of nothing, since otherwise nothing could also originate out of something.

The route between nothing and something is either closed or open. If it is closed, then something can’t originate out of nothing, whereas if it is open then something can originate out of nothing and nothing can also originate out of something.

So, if something has originated, then all things must thus have originated from nothing (to avoid the infinity in originating from something). The conclusion that we have originated out of nothing (ie, evolution instead of creation) is thus rational, but it actually means that all things have originated out of nothing and thus that the idea of a “True Tree of Life” is irrational.

Yielding for rationality under the assumption that something has originated does thus include denying that anything has originated from something, ie, that there is a True Tree of Life. The suggestion that there is a True Tree of Life is instead actually a contradiction between rationality and irrationality. If we’re rational, then we acknowledge origination from nothing but deny a True Tree of Life, whereas if we’re irrational, then we deny origination from nothing but may acknowledge a True Tree of Life. Acknowledging both of them is, however, contradictory, meaning that it lacks a consistent solution.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/