2006-12-05 22:08:28 · 30 answers · asked by DoctressWho 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Time changes everything.
2006-12-06 04:32:05 · update #1
Neither or both.
2006-12-05 23:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The concepts of a beginning and an end are both arbitrary, extracted from our perception of the aspect of reality that is physically formulated. We see things are limited with physical dimensions. An apple, for example, has a definite shape and size. Why for example a seed of an apple eventually becomes as apple? All things in the world as closer of farfetched variations of each other. Existence in essence is an absolute singularity – with no beginning and not end, just existence.
The things are limited. Everything has a beginning and an end but the dividing lines between things are arbitrary. Exactly for example an apple is conceived, was it always in the seed? And when an idea becomes a reality, in the mind our out of it? Are then thought real? The universe is everything – countless arbitrarily limited things. Everything is a singularity and where there is everything there can never be nothing.
Nothing can only come form nothing, and nothing will always be nothing. Without concepts of the beginning and the end, the question - what came first, is in fact a question of what is, and what is not. To be something require something at the first place and always.
2006-12-06 08:12:36 · answer #2 · answered by Shahid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no proof of either, but if there was nothing, there never would be anything, and as it's impossible for something to be destroyed, because it just changes or gets separated, I'd say everything by belief, thought and science..plus being a smart-***. Everything was here, it just wasn't put together like it is now.
2006-12-06 06:17:56 · answer #3 · answered by Aaron 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a great philosophical question and genuinely thought provoking!!
My own views are....
'Nothing' is a concept, not existence ..... it can neither come nor go. Whatever came was something and all of them put together is everything. Since 'nothing' is no existence, something out of everything only could have come first. Time can not begin without something coming to be.
2006-12-06 06:33:21 · answer #4 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This depends: is time a becoming or is being an illusion in the face of time.
If the former, "everything" came first because time requires being to lay claim to a succinct existence by which all becomings come to be. Time then is a movement of being and being precedes it.
If the latter, "nothing" for there is literally no-thing for all is flux. What we distinguish as being is merely our illusion used to make sense of a incomprehensible flux. Nothing ever came to be for there is nothing to become in the constant flux.
2006-12-06 06:48:15 · answer #5 · answered by iwpoe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is based on the supposition that time itself is a linear constuct with 2 following 1 etc. Many philosophers and physicists would despute this and claim that time is circular or spiral insimple geometric terms therefore nothing and everything would of occurred at the same instant, in fact the intire universe is occuring in the same instant and ther is no such thing as time outside of our rational seeking minds. **** i can't explain this very well i don't have the language. I know try taking LSD and you will figure it out for yourself.
2006-12-06 10:28:33 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're a believer, (and that doesn't mean a fanatic!), then the answer is Everything... before there was Anything, there was the Word.. and the Word is, and continues to be Everything. Without Everything there is Nothing.
2006-12-06 06:31:34 · answer #7 · answered by wldhrt_29 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From nothing came everything, unless there was something like a higher power/god who initiated everything from nothing. Then everything will start with that something which initiated everything from nothing. So, it depends if there was something (some higher power/god) that initiated everything from nothing, in which case it will be everything from nothing, to everything. Or else, its simply everything from nothing...
Lol !! I am as confused as you, but then I wasnt good at explaining that I guess....let just everythign be as it is. Nothing is nothing, and everything is everything.
2006-12-06 06:27:20 · answer #8 · answered by arya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything
2006-12-06 06:15:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's the difference? They are one and the same thing. If everything is nothing, then nothing is everything.
2006-12-06 06:13:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were born together. Without anything how can there be a nothing ? Yet there is a nothing for everything...
2006-12-06 06:50:58 · answer #11 · answered by igottanoe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋