The Believer

I appreciate your honest proposition. I don't know what "everything else" is but whatever I have presented in my thread is not baseless speculation. It is based on logic. It is based on what logic allows. It is based on what is possible and what has been observed to be possible practically and logically.

But unfortunately for you, it has already happened before you could think. I guess it has the right to be nonsensical differentiation? Well I am not quite sure about that, but is there any chance that you are talking about calculas?

my assertion is not a mere assertion. It's a conclusion derived from logical reasoning. And my inability to grasp any other possibility is not law. My ability or inability to grasp other possibility depends upon what logic allows. Ofcourse the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic. It means we do not know what that "something" is. But when we say that the universe came from "something", a question will ultimately arise as where that "something" come from?. The only possible answer will be that "something" came from "something else". So in this w

Well what is there to establish? I have already argued with logic why those are the only two possibilities. Logic will allow only these two possibilities. When I argue that those are the only possibilities, it's other people's job to provide other possibilities if they exist and prove my argument wrong. Firstly, I have not assigned my points arbitrarily. I have derived my points from what logic allows. And secondly, it's not an argument from incredulity, because the reason why I can not imagine how there could be any other choices is that logic doesn't allow me to imagine any other

a false dichotomy? How is it a false dichotomy? could you please elaborate and prove your point? And how does my argument fall under the category of "straw man"? Can you prove your point or are you simply making a false accusation?

Well why wouldn't I think in straight linear fashion? I have a reason to think that way because that is how things are and that is how things are being observed from the macroscopic down to the microscopic level. Every event occurs in a linear fashion, from the past to the present to the future, from the beginning to the end. And the current understanding of the creation of the universe and its evolution is nothing but a linear event. And if the conservation of energy doesn't allow it to have a suddden start then it is absolutely clear that it should not have existed. why and how can it exis

I have already made it clear in my earlier arguments with stringJunky why the logic of "some existing without a beginning" is flawed. The logic is very simple. If something is not created, not started or has not began then it can not or should not exist. The question or probability of its existence does not arise at all if it has not been started or created in the first place. I want to ask the same question to you that I had asked stringJunky. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer

Well, it goes against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept because it goes against logic.

I just want to ask you a very simple question here. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him? I believe your answer will be a "NO". My point is how can something which had no beginning or was un created, unstarted or unborn can exist? This goes against logic.

Well it is the same thing as saying "it always existed" which ultimately means it had no beginning. So according to your definition, no matter how far we go back in the past we can always find "it" existing but we can never find it being created which clearly implies that it had no beginning. So keeping your given definition by your side, you can agree with only one of the two possibilities. Either you agree that it had a beginning or you agree that it had no beginning. If you agree that it had a beginning then you are contradicting your own definition, because if it had a beginning then defin

If one says that the universe always existed, then he probably means it had no beginning. If it had no beginning it means it was unborn or uncreated. But if it was unborn or uncreated then how come it exists now? It is clearly contradictory and fails here. Is there any other meaning of the phrase "always existed"? What do you exactly mean when you say or any one says "it always existed"? Can you define this phrase?

if you do not believe that we can get something from nothing then I see no reason or logic for you to say that you believe that we can get something from what appears to be nothing. what appears to be nothing may not be actually the nothing that we all know and understand. Nothing simply means no-thing or the non existence of anything.The term "nothing" is not complex at all and should not be confusing to anyone as far as i understand. The attempt to define something should not be illogical because of our limited understanding. But as I have pointed out earlier in the beginning of m

Well, The two possibilities that you gave are : 1 . ekpyrotic model, about which when asked you said, " Actually the idea is that the brane collisions are cyclic over vast amounts of time embedded in a multidimensional bulk space." 2. The 4D star collapsing model, about which yoy said, "The 4D star collapsing into a black hole tearing a hole in space time resulting in another universe is interesting to me.". Those are just the model of the origin of the universe. So I would like to ask you how does these two possibilities differ from my second possibility where I said "it came fr

Could you please point out which part of my logic is flawed? I would appreciate it very much. But for me, I fail to see the possibility of anymore possibilities. I doubt if anyone can think of any other possibilities than those three given my me. Well let's hope one day we will get a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. That would the great. I wish I get the explanation before I die.

Well actually to be frank, I accept that you or anybody here don't know the answer. And by the way, it was only the first time that I had asked that question to swansont. I didn't ask that same question to you or anybody else to whom I had already asked. swansont was new in the scene so I had to ask him too. I guess there is no harm asking the same question to different peoples in the hope of getting the answer. To be honest with you, I don't actually know where it came from. If I had known I wouldn't have asked you or any one else here. I just have no clue at all, I am just a seek