Doesn't it appear equally impossible that something always existed as it does for nothing to ever be real?

Question

Absolutely Nothing is impossible to imagine, and yet something simply always being without a beginning, without end,cause or creator seems utterly unimaginable. Yet that is what we must admit. Something has existed forever, and yet how can a universe or anything exist without a viewer? in addition if more than one thing has always existed, differentiated from one another , how can that be? It seems to me we must accept that and that is no harder than accepting a self existent being. In fact a self existent being versus non being has more explanantory power.

I think it can be answered but nit exhaustively explainded or understood. We always look for causal explanation and I think rightly so, for to just imagine things always being for no reason just there begs for a cause, the idea of eternal begs at least for a eternal sufficent cause

The big bang really means nothing, it i snot an explanation and it only pushes the question further back,creating infinite big bangs to explain each other, and that is absurd.

Answer 1

Wow, heavy. We can use science to figure out how the universe works, but no one really knows what this universe actually _is_. Is it an actual thing or just an idea, or is it a simulation, or what? Nobody knows. I don't agree with you that a self-existent being makes sense, though. All that really had to happen is for something to create our universe through what appears to be a big bang. Who/what ever did that only had to exist for that tiny period of time. The conditions could have arisen for a big bang to happen, then instantly disappeared never to be seen again. Regardless of what happened, that doesn't change how our universe works today. You don't need a god to explain how physics works, but if you want to believe that one created the universe, that's fine. Just understand that it doesn't matter either way.

Answer 2

you are very close to the truth when you say that an infinite regression of big bangs seems absurd. It is not only absurd but logically a cognitive disonnance over what the mind can find a representation of.
The inability to imagine a being of infinte existence is no cause to insist upon its impossibility. I think it was Aristotle or it could've been Augustine that said "Don't ask a fish what it is like to be wet." You must remember that we are finite creatures. A being that exists outside or maybe transcendent of finite existence in order to make His will and purpose known to those within a finite reality would by neccessity need to speak and illustrate truths that are anthropomorphic in nature. That is in order to communicate with the fish the fish needs to hear you in fishes language. In His fins ...He got the whole world.
This is pretty much what God did when He came to earth as the incarnate Son of God.
The Kalam argument says that that which began to be has a cause. The universe began to be therefore the universe has a cause.
By your own words about the absurdity of an infinite regression of causes it has to be understood that while the universe can be shown to have a beginning and therefore must have a cause it does not show that that which caused it to be must neccessarily have a cause itself. Cause and effect are concepts that are finite and subject to the laws of sequential processes. Space, Time, Matter and Energy share this attribute. That which is transcendent to finite existence is not bound by the limitations imposed by finite existence. One of these limitations is our sense of the sequentiality of events. While we are seemingly always in the now the past and the future are abstracts of thought relegated to what memory holds, the present experiences and logical progression of forethought anticipates. Outside of finite experience the timefulness of cause and effect is irrelevant because observation is simultaneous. From the stand point of transcendency it is not cause and effect but the actuality of volitional will and purpose which is a steady state outside of the universe made evident in the created order in order that we might seek after the heart and mind of Him that created man for relationship. Consciousness itself is a direct result of the Spiritual reality of infinity meshing with the physiological reality of matter in the form of man to form a "living soul."
So your own conscious awareness of self is the best evidence you have subjectively speaking of the concept of eternity. For within the created universe this alone is all that will survive the death of the body. Once this truth is apprehended it then becomes easier to see where a transcendent consciousness (You can call Him God) might exist without itself having a cause.

Answer 3

Time logically had to have a starting point, or else it would be eternity. If God created the universe, then logically, He had to be outside of the dimesnion of time. If He's outside of time, how could He have a starting point? this is baswed on both logic, and astronomy (a study done on the big bang theory).

the universe exists within a ray of time, with an initial starting point and continuing on. For all we know, time could be a line segment, where as it will stop.

nothing created itself. as the romans said: "Ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing).

Answer 4

I don't know the answer to your question,no one does!You can pick an answer and choose to believe.Or not.

Answer 5

you need to stop eating those mushrooms.