[dleviwing]

Chazzysaw;
If your philosophy is one that the universe is the entirety of existence, then I can see why you feel confused. Existence is eternal; Also the substance that forms the physical universe is eternal. Existence can be infinite, however the physical substance is finite.
Just because someone decided to select the event that resulted in the formation of our universe as the starting point for our measure of time, does not mean it is so.
As yet I know of no proof that supports the phenomena of a beginning event that came into being from an absolute nothingness. Both genesis and the Standard Model are wrong!

I agree; it always was.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Michael; I'm glad you cleared that up for me; I was told that my coming into being was an accident and I told the same to my own kids. The universe may have had a beginning and may have an ending; but existence has always been!!! How far into Buddhism are you? Fond wishes; Dave

Not that far in Dave,that you would need a search-light to find me,if you catch my drift?We agree again existance has always been,yes it has,but the universe is within a clyclitic impulse,and ordered mindfulness?
regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Michael;
The cyclic impulse is one scenario, but as we learn more about the cosmos, this scenario becomes less likely, that is unless we are but a single universe particle in a much grander scheme of existence. I leave these debates to the theologians.

[Mr. Nobody]

This has puzzled me for a while as well, as can be seen by a similar thread of mine. I hypothesize of eternal existence without purpose nor reason. An existence that provides the background for reality. Human mind in an attempt to explain the patterns of the world, a pattern born out of evolution in a struggle against increasing disorder, assigns reason and personifies the world, all in the spirit of coming to grips with the system that woke up and is looking at itself.
There can be no beginning, nor can there be an end, as energy (all that is) is not created nor destroyed, but only converted.
Finite consciousness within infinite existence.

[dleviwing]

Mr. Nobody;
You're not alone in your puzzlement nor in your conclusion of the consciousness of the universe itself. It seems to be a natural evolution of thought when one attempt to justify his knowledge that we are of the same stuff that forms stars and galaxies. So why would we consider ourselves as living entities and not attribute the same notion to all the other matter of the universe or as you say, "we are the universe attempting to understand itself".
Best wishes;
Dave

[michellemfry]

What invoked the rapid rise in temperature? This is more a glimpse based on faith. Only one thing could have caused such a thing. That would be an entity, an eternal One. To look upon Him is said to be difficult.

What raises your temperature? Yeah, it is that powerful.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by michellemfry What invoked the rapid rise in temperature? This is more a glimpse based on faith. Only one thing could have caused such a thing. That would be an entity, an eternal One. To look upon Him is said to be difficult. What raises your temperature? Yeah, it is that powerful.

Michelle;
The problem with that view is the fact that the entity had to exist prior to our universe and thus this entity also would be of the same physical substance as our universe. Personally I see the beginning of our universe as being a collision of objects of fundamental matter. The point of this thread is to emphasize that we may never know the solution to this final question regardless of the level of science or of faith one may attain.

When the solid fundamental substance of our universe had a collision with another object of solid fundamental substance, their uniform linear velocity was converted to the vibrational wave functions and thus the temperature went from a true absolute zero degree Kelvin to maximum entropy. This caused the expansion. Entropy has actually been decreasing ever since this event and not increasing.

I have no objections to those who wish to accept the interpretations of their faith or religions; I only object to the attempt to inject religious notions into the disciplines of scientific endeavor.

[michellemfry]

Sorry, I should keep religion separate.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Sorry, I should keep religion separate.

Michelle;
Your comments are quite valid; no need to be sorry. No one has an answer to this fundamental question and thus all opinions must be considered. We all make the choice of what to believe.

[chazzysaw]

Im not saying the universe is an entirety of existence.I agree the substance,you mention, is eternal (without time) but I believe the physical substance is a result of the existance of the etrenal substance. Take fire for an example: The result of fire is heat. You can't have heat without fire and if fire is eternal the heat is eternal. The stuff within the heat continue to live and die, give birth and give death, create and destroy and this spirals on and on and on......