So what was there before the beginning….. ?

I'd have to ask Petey.

You should ask the writer of this article . He has his own agenda to push here .

So what was there before the beginning.. ?

I think they call it a prequel nowadays.

what this word mean "prequel" ? is the spelling correct ?

away from the ridiculous theory ofconspiracy andagenda...etc. , i expected to find many logic hypothesis to be discussed here..... !!

any way, as i said previously , " we must not use 'only' oursenses and previous experiences, while analyzing any phenomena'beyond' the rationalpalpableenvironments " .

respectfully , hoping to hear more opinions from you..

thanks for this careful opinion

Why is it that theists see "where did the atoms that eventually formed everything else come from" as a logical argument for the existence of a creator, but "where didthe creatorcome from" as an illogical question? For the non-atheist, the buck always has to stop at god(s).

if so , what is the source of all substances around us....?

please , review my new article.. as a step in this controversial question

Thanks flameaway, I was AWOL for a bit there.

Dr. I used the one word driveby method to answer your question(s). It is as probable an answer as any, when dealing with the totality of the universe. We will never have the capacity to understand it, especially with our limited mental capacities. To understand just one aspect of the universe merely means there are an infinite number of things yet to understand.

And that comprehension is above my pay grade.

You just described the "closed universe theory" (aka; Big Crunch) whereby all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity and cylindrically, repeats itself. Actually, there is nothing supernatural about that...or a "open universe" where expansion keeps going until all entropy (energy) is used up. Both cases follow known constants of quantum physics.

There is one point which many theologists and scientists agree with, albeit for different reasons, is that; "In the beginning, there was NOTHING." When I refer to "nothing", I am talking about the complete absence of anything...no time/space, gravity, matter, electromagnetic force, nuclear strong/weak force...NOTHING.

For us humans, it is an incomprehensible, absolutely indescribable non-state. From that non-state, a singularity happened. It is from this juncture one can argue as to whether or not some supreme divinity, demiurge or inconceivable fundamental force gave spark to that "singularity."

Perhaps but nonetheless, it is the point where scientists and theologians start to disagree.

The theologian/philosopher Thoma Aquinas, argued in his Summa on the existence of God (or cosmological argument), that She/He/It was the "first cause" or the ultimate causation of the universe. Aquinas relied heavily on Plato and Aristotle logic.

Science (most notably Stephan Hawkings), on the other hand, has advanced the idea of "string theory" and by extension, Membrane Theory (M-Theory) to postulate the beginning of a singularity.

Arent you putting the cart before the horse a bit? I mean most cannot agree that a God exists, much less describe his nature.

Biblically speaking, the entire idea stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by (using the colloquial) himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity; therefore "I am who I am" which is sometimes referred to as the Tetragrammaton.

This is where faith starts or your Alpha and Omega, so to speak. At this point the whole idea of who created God does not make any sense and is more of a rhetorical circular question.. who created the God who created the God....ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

PS - I don't believe there is an infinity nor an eternity. All that means is numbers and concepts that are so far reaching that us humans cannot comprehend them.....but I do believe in a beginning an and end, as a natural cycle of our existence.

God exists in our minds, as we also created Gods out of our own human minds, as a way to try and comprehend a beginning for everything.

This is the salient point that goes over the heads of those who see religious doctrines as a baseline for morality. Just as we make sensible,secular laws now (most of the time sensible anyways), humanity did the same inpast agesby making protective lawsas reflections ofthe knowledge of the day. Atthat point in time, little wasknown about the inner workings ofnature, andreligionwas consequentlyinfused into government as a law enforcement imperative. From this symbiotic relationship religious doctrines were born. Modern day zealots, and even moderately religious folks, see these doctrines as the origins of morality that could only have come from god(s) - but asMike said, gods come from human minds, therefore those ancient governing tools were not born of divinity, they were merely human concoctions that were relative to the needs of that time period. When times change, laws need to change to reflect the times. This is why it is absolutely critical to separate religion and government, as there are many who will gladly use religious doctrine to back up their agendas as if they are divinely inspired, and therefore unquestionable. By their very nature, religious doctrines are not living documents. They are unsuited for change.

I can find that theological explanation where? In the gospel of JR? I think you want to read a little into what Aquinas has to say about that: Summa Theologica - Question 2. The existence of God

Yes science can. You are unfamiliar with "string theory" so it would seem.

Therefore, goddidit. Unfortunately, that is the most intellectual lazy approach to the conundrum. Once you establish a god concept, others take it and run amok, creating outcomes by using fear of the unknown. How crazy is it to consider that it took billions of years for anentire universe to develop, and some god sat around waiting for that eventual minute timeframe whereby its prized humans finally evolved on that tiny planet represented by an infinitely small volume of that universe, and then it judged those humanscritically upon their individual deaths, and places their souls in a good pile and a bad pile? We should be feeling sorry for that god who sat alone for billions of years waiting for such a mundane task to do. No wonder Yahweh was so psychotic, he must have grown mad over his inability to juststop existing in total loneliness.

Aquinas's logical "proofs" have never been proven or disposition, at least philosophically. While there have been counter suppositions or theories, both sides lack empirical proof in science and mathematics. So we again, arrive at a stalemate.

They key word you use is "unconvincing" but to whom? If you lack faith, which is an intricate part of spirituality and religion, of course you will be unconvinced, especially if you have a predisposition not to believe.

The entire concept of god or God is a preternatural nut no one has yet to crack, which is why it is still being debated and perhaps, always will.

That's just more intellectual laziness. Time is time. We have no basis to believe that there is any other life form that would exist by a form of time that differs from the one that literally everything we know exists by. Believing that is no different than believing in god, or believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Besides, if billions of human years equates to one year in the life of a god, then the thousands of human years that humans have existed within would only be a fraction of a second in the life of a god. It doesn't work any way you slice it.

Hal, I guess that's why I'm considered an objective thinker and you areconsidered asubjective one.

That sounds like a slight, so I'll take it as one, even though you have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to matters of the validity of religious belief, there is no point in being objective. When it comes to matters of spiritual belief, I'm as objective as anyone. Spirituality and religion are two vastly different topics. I choose to be an atheist, but I'm never critical of discussions about what happens to the life force that keeps us going in life, once we die. That is a legitimate discussion. Discussion positing how one religious doctrine trumps another, or about an eternal and unchangingcreator,are mired in futility and nonsense. You said it yourself - gods are made by humans, not the other way around.

1 in 3 seniors dies with Alzheimer's or another dementia.

Senior status is rapidly approaching. To gain such knowledge against such odds seems futile. I'd be happy just to remember what day it is...pass the beer nuts please.

Yes . String theory is just an hypothesis and not a very good one at that .

I've really enjoyed this thread,a bit cerebral for me but very interestingwith a very civil tone.

(soft, golf tournament clapping)

Time is time.

Doubtful it is that simple . Just as space , when extended to far enough distances , is shown to be non-Euclidian , it might be completely reasonable to expect the same thing about time being "non-linear" when extended to long durations .

String theory put to music ... very tuneful :

BTW the singing by the Einstein sock puppet is especially good .

"Nothing" refers to ALL existence. This includes the "Multiverse" which incorporates "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

When Hawkings postulated string theories; Cyclic model as an alternative explanation to the expanding universe theory, it also offered a mathematical opening to explain other phenomenon such as higher dimensions (4 to 12) beyond our three dimensional world (M-Theory).

But they are finding even string theory has its limitations.

Faith is the province of theologians and philosophers. As it is not a tangible essence and cannot be seen, heard or empirically measured, it sets itself apart from the mundane sciences as a discipline which offers rational arguments for concepts such as reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Faith, in its most primordial aspect, is belief without proof.

Look at this equation;

That is one of the mathematical proofs of light. I'm not into quantum math so I don't understand it's beauty and symmetry, and yet, I believe it to be true. That is rudimentary faith in action.

Socrates (who gave us the "Golden Rule") Plato and Aristotle rationalized the concept of "The Greatest Good" to a point whereby, without saying it, opened the door for a belief or faith in a higher power, beyond that which could be seen.

Faith is pure ambiguity taken one step past it's center.

Any ignorance about this topic stems from your inability to see beyond what you consider as truth. You dance with words and make pronouncements that as I have said before, are esoteric at best.

You also deliberately misinterpret things assuming you are right without even trying to qualify yourself. For example, what the hell does this mean?

• At root scientists approach the universe from a different framework.

I have no idea what that means and quite frankly, don't care.

So please, spare me your trite equivocations and stick to what the subject being discussed here is.

Mike,

Like I said, quantum math is beyond me as I only went as far as leaning the basics in algebra, geometry, chemistry, physics and calculus but they all use mathematical formula that I understand.

Engineers use math formula's, computer programs contain algorithms which require the use of quadratic equations...which I don't understand but they work, so to my way of reasoning, it must be true which requires a leap of faith on my part.

It's all nonessential anyways, unless you argue with a hardcore physicist which is way out of my league.

Hal,

A "god concept" existed long before any of the sciences came about and is still going strong to this very day. This of course is not proof that a supreme divinity exists, but it does give credence to the fact that trillions of people do believe it and use faith to sustain it, even if it means their death.

Mike,

Time/space is relative. Einstein proved that. One of the basic tenets of time is that is slows down either by moving fast or by being father away from a gravitational force.

For example, the satellites we use to communicate run on a different mechanical time structure. For a satellite orbiting (or geosynchronous) with the Earth, time passes more slowly. Ergo the satellite clock loses time relative to its earthbound mate.

1) What is the source of all these atoms from which the first cells were assembled ?

Stars, come on, this is kid stuff. Everyone knows this.

2) If we could move back into the past, when as the beginning of this world around us ? Where did, the accident of cell assembly occur and what was before this ?

approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The 'accident' of cell assembly began some time after that. The pieces were all in place. Recent experiments have shown that both left and right hand protein chains could be produced by large impacts (read cometary) on the water that was already here. That water, which came from outer space during the later Bombardment period was already seeded with many organic compounds.

Really. Watch some discovery channel, this isn't rocket science stuff.

3) If we could move forever in any direction in the universe, what will be the end? If it more space then we still in our world. Or is it blocked by some material ? Then what is behind that?

Meaningless question. Unfortunately, in English, it's possible to make a sentence that follows the rules of grammar but is still meaningless unless stated in math terms.

Hal,

There are a lot of reasons to think that ones experiences of time are different. How long did summer last when you were a child as compared to when you were 30 or 40? And, as Aeon Pax stated, the time differentials between two synchronized clocks will be evident if one is kept on the earths surface while the other is deployed in space. We can calculate the difference and compare the calculation with actual data and verify this.

As for the flat earth concept, you need no more than two poles of equal height placed at different latitudes: At the same time on the same day, the shadows will be different lengths... therefore, not a flat earth. I am pretty sure that the Mesopotamians had the technology to do this. Just goes to show that wrong thinking can be very compelling, whereas critical thinking can demand a bit more intellectual honesty from it's adherents.

Hi Peaches

A mathematical proof takes equations that are accepted as known and puts them together in new ways. To Wit:

IF V=l*w*h and M=V*d, we can manipulate both equivalences to derive M=l*w*h*d. There are no numbers involved there, just mathematical operations that are agreed upon. When you do start putting the numbers in is where the formulae start really popping, and I mean that in the most excellent way.

Question 2,

First it would help if you understood eternity is a measure of time, which is of course relative and fundamentally linked to space and gravity. Infinity is a measure of unit numbers.

Time/Space is a product of the Grand Unification Theory , which encompasses gravity, electromagnetic force, nuclear strong and weak force. Eternity, which is NOT a fundamental force does not enter into any quantum physics explination or theories.

The Grand Unification Theory explains how the "Big Bang" produced the cosmos we exist in.

An "expanding" or "open" universe does not indicate infinity or eternity. If we were to postulate expansion relative to eternity or infinity, then the question becomes "what is the universe expanding into "?

• if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into.( source )

Key word "IF", which is why such things are theories, not absolute facts.

As we speak, the Large Hadron Collider operated by CERN, is searching for the Higgs boson or what is popularly called the "god particle" so named because;

• This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book , a much older one... ( source )

Who makes that shit up much less can make any rational sense out of it?

Mike , you missed the most important part of those equations . They were the DLux versions !

So what was there before the beginning.. ?

It really doesn't matter.

it is completely useless and worthless to push some body to believe ...., but all we have here are trials to find out logical sensible answers to the three questions...

well , if so , what is the source of power produced these actions ; super conduction and super colliding.....??

excuse me , but these articles have a verypoorlogic..... , any way, we do not need Theology here .... but we are just searching a logical and scientific answers to the three questions

So what was there before the beginning.. ?

I wasn't there before the beginning so I couldn't answer that question.

Besides that's an infinite question; that no one can ever really answer conclusively.

and what was before ??

all we have here are trials to find out logical sensible answers to the three questions...

The 1st question is not that hard to answer :

1) What is the source of all these atoms from which the first cells were assembled ?

Hydrogen atoms are constantly coming into existence any time a free proton combines with a free electron in free space . From there other atoms can be constructed inside of suns by the process of fusion .

and , what is the source of theseprotons , free electron , and space ?

i hope so too , .... but....., what are the logic answers ??

Why does there need to be an absolute beginning?

The questions you pose are unanswerable, for there is always the question "Where did (insert item/god of your choice here) come from?" no matter how far one pursues this line of reasoning down the rabbit hole. To simply choose an arbitrary point and say, "God happened here," puts the lie to ones rationality. If one is truly interested in the question, then it defies the logic one espouses to say, "Well, we can't really tell what happened beyond this point, so we will say that something occurred and that is that, not going to try to look farther back, not going to even postulate ultimate existence beyond this point."

As for this planet that we are on, it accreted from a spinning mass of gasses that also spawned the rest of our solar system. Where did this mass of gasses come from? See above.

For me, personally, I feel that religion flows from the inability to say, "I don't know," in reference to a question, possibly because one lacks the question that follows logically from the previous answer: "Let's find out."

Wheel,

1) Stars? I wish it were as simple than that. While it is considered true that all things are made of "star dust", exactly how life (as we know it) came into being is still an unknown. The study of that is called " Abiogenesis " and is still pretty hypothetical. Some believe in "spontaneous generation", still others subscribe to the idea of a slow evolution by means of a " primordial soup ." I discount, of course, the Adam and Eve myth.

2) While protons, neutrons and electrons were in existence, atoms did not make their appearance until some 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Before that, the universe was essentially too hot for even light to shine. The period atoms did form is called The Era of Recombination which we can still detect as cosmic background radiation. Living cells came much, much later.

3) The question is very relevant to general relativity and quantum physics. In fact the entire argument of the existence infinite space is bound up in the discussions here. Is the universe expanding into some ethereal void as on a straight plane, or does space curve and eventually fall into itself....all of this is theoretical right now,

and , what is the source of theseprotons , free electron , and space ?

I don't know and neither do you . Science does not work in the realm of the unknowable . But if you want to speculate about that , feel free ...

AP ,

What makes you think those equations are "quantum math" ?