Was there a biginning?

[lunakilo]

I seem to be in a philosophical mood today.
I am wondering if the assumption the there was a biginning to universe (or multiverse or world or whatever you call all ther is) makes sense.

I know that everything was once different, my body is made up of atoms which were once part of long dead stars, if the commen theories of how the universe has changed over time is to be believed then there was a time when atoms didn't exist, but the biulding blocks that would become atoms did exist.

All in all as far back as we have proper knowledge things that came into being were made from other things which already existed.
Something ever came out of nothing.

If something never came out of nothing that must mean that something allways existed, right?

For some reason this doesn't make sense to me. Allways is a long time.
An everlasting universe which change internally, but has no beginning and no end is just to big for me to comprehend.

Many religious people believe (as I understand it ) that once there was nothing, and some creater/God was responsible for the initial creation of something out of nothing. In my oppinion this is the same basic idea as an everlasting universe. God existed before creation, so something didn't actually come out of nothing; it came out of God.

Either God is as everlasting as the universe described above and it is the same story as above, or God somehow created it self out of nothing which is the same story as the universe magically springing into existence out of some quantum fluctuation or something like that.

Neither of the stories really make sense to me.
What do you think, can somthing come out of nothing or not?

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't believe in nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't believe in nothing.

"Nothing" is such a poorly defined word.
The nothing from which the big bang erupted could be a something we're unfamiliar with.
I believe that stuff happens, & that other stuff happened before now.
But beginnings? We can guess, but I remain completely ignorant of them.

 

[Valjean]

A beginning presupposes the existence of time. If time, as a geographic dimension, only came into existence with the Big Bang, was there ever really a beginning? Was there ever a time when the universe was not, followed by a time when the universe was?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

"Nothing" is such a poorly defined word.
The nothing from which the big bang erupted could be a something we're unfamiliar with.
I believe that stuff happens, & that other stuff happened before now.
But beginnings? We can guess, but I remain completely ignorant of them.

Then you would have to ask where did that something come from, something eventually down the road came from nothing.

 

[Madhuri]

I think that the universe goes through cycles of 'birth' and 'death' eternally. There was no beginning, and there will be no end.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you would have to ask where did that something come from, something eventually down the road came from nothing.

Actually, I don't have to ask where it came from.
But if I did, it would be an unanswerable question.
Our speculation about it has at least become more interesting over the last century.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings and salutations fellow eternal beings,

Those who state, "nothing does not exist" are correct in my boggy thought.
There is no beginning, there is no ending, there is only now.
Always,
yes,
Loves y'all,
bestest,
swampy

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Greetings and salutations fellow eternal beings,

Those who state, "nothing does not exist" are correct in my boggy thought.
There is no beginning, there is no ending, there is only now.
Always,
yes,
Loves y'all,
bestest,
swampy

If there wasn't a beginning, wouldn't that mean we don't exist

 

[swamplizard]

If there wasn't a beginning, wouldn't that mean we don't exist

Just the opposite, my friend. We are eternal, else there exists nothing and nothing does not exist.

Number line:

<---><---> (no zero, only infinity)

Beginnings and endings are imagined parameters of a mind that has come to engage the being as the authority. We are always now. :yes:

bogginess best,
swampy

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Just the opposite, my friend. We are eternal, else there exists nothing and nothing does not exist.

Number line:

<---><---> (no zero, only infinity)

Beginnings and endings are imagined parameters of a mind that has come to engage the being as the authority. We are always now. :yes:

bogginess best,
swampy

Sounds like a good answer, I think many will agree with you. But if you get a chronoscope - or a telescope to look through time, you keep zooming in, in, in on the beginning, I think there would have to eventually be something coming from nothing, no matter how long it is to the human mind.

There is no proof that we existed for eternal, and even though I haven't proved my side either, I can certainly say that Eternity is much more supernatural.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't believe in nothing.

What he said.

 

[swamplizard]

Sounds like a good answer, I think many will agree with you. But if you get a chronoscope - or a telescope to look through time, you keep zooming in, in, in on the beginning, I think there would have to eventually be something coming from nothing, no matter how long it is to the human mind.

There is no proof that we existed for eternal, and even though I haven't proved my side either, I can certainly say that Eternity is much more supernatural.

Thanks Sum,

Eternity cannot be understood with borders that the mind wants to design, however if there ever was "nothing" or if there ever is "nothing," then there is no now. Give it a chance within "inner thought."

boggy best mate,
swampy

 

[Awoon]

Ising

 

[swamplizard]

Ising

Mornin' Awoon,

Always.

best,
swampy

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Thanks Sum,

Eternity cannot be understood with borders that the mind wants to design, however if there ever was "nothing" or if there ever is "nothing," then there is no now. Give it a chance within "inner thought."

boggy best mate,
swampy

Again, I agree. But if there was never a "beginning" then there is no now also.

It's a big crumply paradox.

X - The universe now.
Y - The beginning.

If Y does not exist, then the X would not exist also. It's like saying a car exists without being built.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Ising

Who/What is Ising?

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, I agree. But if there was never a "beginning" then there is no now also.

It's a big crumply paradox.

X - The universe now.
Y - The beginning.

If Y does not exist, then the X would not exist also. It's like saying a car exists without being built.

You create the paradox by assuming unwarranted things.

 

[Awoon]

Mornin' Awoon,

Always.

best,
swampy

Hi Swampi

 

[swamplizard]

Again, I agree. But if there was never a "beginning" then there is no now also.

It's a big crumply paradox.

X - The universe now.
Y - The beginning.

If Y does not exist, then the X would not exist also. It's like saying a car exists without being built.

Ingredients for a "beginning" existing prior to the beginning would in themselves be before the beginning, thus negating the illusion of a beginning.

No beginning, no ending, only now, my brother.

bestestest,
swampy