logically, nothing should exist

There might not be evidence that there was a beginning, but it is logical to say that all that you see today, and all that was before, and before that, and before that, had to have come from something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so your saying existence is an eternal cycle of constant transformation?.


peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there must have been some sort of outside "thing" (for lack of a better word) that must've sparked the creation of existence, but then, what created that?

It's like God. You believe that God is eternal, but I still have to wonder, how was he created? Why is he there?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there is not "outside" of the universe, because universe means everything in existence. so if something does lay outside of what we call the universe, then we have to then include that in the universe. even if another universe exists, that is still in the overall universe.

exactly what created the thing before the thing?, if you believe something created the known universe, then something must have created that. if you think god created it then god must either be an eternal cycle of transformation, or god is eternal and has always existed.


you cant just say something came from nothing without explaining how it might even happen. why do you believe this even though you cant even explain it to yourself? thats illogical to believe something you cant explain.


peace.

 

And before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, etc.
Do you see the problem ?
If you keep up that reasoning you end up agreeing with me that something always was.

 

1.) But then what created that... exactly. Call that cause 0, what created cause 0 ? Cause -1 created cause 0, but what created cause -1 ? That must have been cause -2... etc, etc, etc.

2.) I don't believe God is eternal, i don't even believe in God.
If you have to wonder how he was created we're back to 1.)
Why is he there ? Where ? I don't think he IS there or anywhere..

 

I think you meant this: Its illogical to believe in something that cant be explained.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no i actualy meant, its illogical to believe in something that you cant explain yourself. because the first thing you should be able to do with something you personaly believe in is explain it.

thats why i believe existence has always existed, simply because i cannot explain or understand how something can come from nothing, wich to me concludes something had to always exist.

peace.

 

It seems to be in a place were time and space have not meaning, there must exist infinate potential which is made manifest as universes. But how else, what else, could be made manifest also?
In essence the question you are asking is how a temporal-spatial mind can comprehend that which is not temporal spatial, and the short answer is that it cannot.

 

I see your point but in that case belief is illogical period. Belief is a confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, thus being unexplainable.

Also, you cannot explain or understand how something always was. So your (and mine) belief is illogical by your own definition.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Both 'theories' are unprovable, therefore you can only belief in one of them or be agnostic about the whole thing. I chose to believe that something always was because that is a whole lot more logical than to believe that nothing equals something.

 

you are right in alot of ways, but if something always existed it has no further explanation than that. because it always existed, therefore has no reason, meaning or method to its existence. it just is. if something is truly infinite/eternal, then your explanation can only be very short and simple. because it was always existing and thats all.



peace.

 

I agree, but that is exactly the point. Thats why you cant prove or disprove it, preventing you from ever arriving at the point where you can explain it.
Come to think of it, disproving that something equals nothing should be quite simple

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's not forget that we are in a fish bowl. It is quite conceiveable that the explanation for the existence of the universe requires an understanding of what exists beyond the universe, such as higher dimensions of space. Our inability to see beyond our universe makes it quite possibly impossible to explain the existence of the universe.

 

Its because as human beings we dont have the mental capacity to understand things that are truly infinite. Not everything is linear, beginning and end, Time doesnt exists so isnt it possible that all the infinite span of our existence is happening simultaniously for eternity and our concious is just the product of a vast expanse of energy and matter that we cannot ever hope to explain. I mean how can you find the beginning to something that is infinite? Its effing mind boggling as it should be.

 

Universe = all there is.
There is no beyond the universe.

 

There is the multi-universe theory.

But see, what sparked THE VERY FIRST existence? Why is existence there in the first place, what was the very first thing? And then....how did IT get there?

 

but we can explain it quite well so far, you have the 2 main ideas. something that comes from nothing, wich we cannot explain. or something that always existed, and because it always existed it does not require an explanation. simply because if something has always existed it would not need a reason or meaning to explain why it exists.

eternity doesent need to be explained, its not that it cant be explained. its explanation is infact as simple as the statement. "it always existed". that is the explanation.


peace.

 

Multi-universe theory is just a name, IF its true all the universes combined form the 'overall' universe.

What makes you think there was a very first existence ?

 

what you are asking is not going to ever produce an answer. you will just go round and round in circles. then you will finaly realise and come to the conclusion i came to about 8 years ago, that in that frame of thinking it must be an infinite eternal cycle of transformation. wich is sparked by the eternal empty force that we call space and i call dao.

if something had a start then something must have started it, and so on and so on.


peace,

 

I am agreeing with you, I'm just saying that we can never prove that something always existed.
It follows that we can't explain how or why something always was (whether that is necessary or not).