What Was Before ' the Beginning '....?

[Airyaman]

Why nothing could have been there before the beginning, because can there even be a "before the beginning"?

[Rahul]

‎1) what is the - source - of all these ' atoms ' , (material) from ‎which ‎‎, the first cells were assembled ??‎

Ok, well the short answer for where atoms come from is this: Immediately after the "Big Bang" there were no atoms. The elementary particles were too hot at this time to form stable atoms. After several thousand years everything cooled down enough for mainly Hydrogen and Helium to form.

I suppose you really mean is where does matter come from.

At the very beginning of the expansion of the Universe there wasn't any matter. There was only energy in the form of light (photons). Photons can spontaneously decay into particles and antiparticles and can be observed happening today in gamma rays. The matter in the universe came from this decay.

‎2) if we could move back on the ' time line ' , when was ‎the ‎beginning of this world around us ? where , the accident of ‎‎ ' cell ‎assembly ' occurred ?? and what was - before - this ‎beginning ??‎

Which are you asking? The beginning of the planet or the beginning of life?

‎3) if we could move forever in any direction , in the universe , ‎what ‎will be at the end ? is it more space ? then we still in our ‎world !!. is ‎it blocked by some material ? then what is behind …??‎
hoping to find logical answers , in order to get better ‎‎ understanding ‎to our existence..... ‎

No matter how fast or how far you traveled within the Universe you would always still be in the middle of the Universe. The origin point of the singularity where the expansion of the Universe began is about 46 billion light years away in every direction from us. No matter where we are. This is due to the fact that new time and space is continuously being created within the singularity everywhere at once.

[Sword of Christ]

There was an eternally existing God beyond time that's what there was. Why do atheists have to make it difficult by claiming he isn't real?

[max-greece]

There was an eternally existing God beyond time that's what there was. Why do atheists have to make it difficult by claiming he isn't real?

Because:

a/ He isn't.
b/ Why would he have to be eternal - he could be part of a society that has its own Gods - ad infinitum. In fact he could be a Janitor in his universe.
c/ It doesn't help. If we were to accept it without definitive proof then we abandon scientific principle and may as well start allocating anything we don't know to magic.
d/ A lack of evidence.

Of course then there are all the deist god / theist god / which one(s) arguments which move us even further from the truth - i.e. non of the above.

[Sword of Christ]

Because:

a/ He isn't.

You know this because?

b/ Why would he have to be eternal - he could be part of a society that has its own Gods - ad infinitum. In fact he could be a Janitor in his universe.

If he isn't the eternal creator of existence he isn't God.

c/ It doesn't help. If we were to accept it without definitive proof then we abandon scientific principle and may as well start allocating anything we don't know to magic.

The creation of the universe wouldn't just happen there be some kind of process or mechanism involved. One that's beyond our understanding or ability observe perhaps. Anything that is real that happens but is beyond our ability to understand could be seen as a magic.

d/ A lack of evidence.

The perfect natural balance of a universe that allowed the creation of supreme forms of complexity to develop should at least be a clue for you. And we know there actually was a point of creation you would think we would drawing nearer to God by now given what science has shown us.

Of course then there are all the deist god / theist god / which one(s) arguments which move us even further from the truth - i.e. non of the above.

God is God there is only one and all religions based on God are based on God. There are some strong disagreements about some of the details and I'm not saying they're going to be all equally as true. A deistic God may as well be a non-existent God but it's a step in the right direction.

[Captain Colostomy]

There was an eternally existing God beyond time that's what there was.

You want this to be so, and you say it is so. So?

Why do atheists have to make it difficult by claiming he isn't real?

Why do you make things difficult by claiming he is?

[Sword of Christ]

You want this to be so, and you say it is so. So?

I may as well say you don't want God to exist and so you say he doesn't. If this is going to be the full extent of your counter argument.

Why do you make things difficult by claiming he is?

It's more difficult to actually have an explanation rather than having literally no explanation at all?

[Esquilax]

You know this because?

There's no evidence, and hence no reason to believe. You keep saying there could be no evidence, and therefore the god you believe in has absolutely no reason to believe in him. You dug this hole yourself.

If he isn't the eternal creator of existence he isn't God.

Assuming that you're going to define god by those rigid characteristics alone.

The creation of the universe wouldn't just happen there be some kind of process or mechanism involved. One that's beyond our understanding or ability observe perhaps. Anything that is real that happens but is beyond our ability to understand could be seen as a magic.

So if it's beyond our understanding, what possible justification could you have for believing that it's god?

The perfect natural balance of a universe that allowed the creation of supreme forms of complexity to develop should at least be a clue for you.

Just because you assert that, doesn't make it so. How many black holes do we have, tearing into the universe and destroying everything in their path? How many uninhabitable worlds, separated by immense distances of nothingness suffused with radiation? How many tiny particles of space debris that, simply due to the laws of physics, become deadly missiles before they hit something?

When you demand that we see all this as "perfectly balanced" you're just being a toddler. The more we learn about the universe, the more nonsensical, complex and dangerous it becomes.

Oh, and incidentally, what kind of science education do you have?

And we know there actually was a point of creation you would think we would drawing nearer to God by now given what science has shown us.

No, we know there was a point at which the universe as we know it came into existence. That's not a creation, in any sense of the word.

God is God there is only one and all religions based on God are based on God. There are some strong disagreements about some of the details and I'm not saying they're going to be all equally as true. A deistic God may as well be a non-existent God but it's a step in the right direction.

Yawn, more bare assertions with nothing to support them.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Anyone who tells you they know what came 'before' is a liar and a fraud.

[Captain Colostomy]

I may as well say you don't want God to exist and so you say he doesn't. If this is going to be the full extent of your counter argument.

Say whatever you want...that's how a posited god was invented anyway. I have no good reason to find this plausible, though, including your incredulous appeal earlier.

It's more difficult to actually have an explanation rather than having literally no explanation at all?

Godidit is easy, huh? Sorry my obstinance upsets you. C'est la vie!