(December 1, 2012 at 4:14 am)Undeceived Wrote: Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'. If it has no qualities and no bounds, it is nothing, and there might be no point in arguing beginning at all. You could call such a state eternal. But that's no victory for the generation of matter, because if a vacuum has the mere potentiality for material, that material only becomes an actuality with a third-party cause (Aristotle). By that same line of logic, any kind of plane for quantum fluctuations also needs a cause.
Your philosophy is more than 2000 years out of date. If only Aristotle knew about quantum physics and limits of causality...
(December 1, 2012 at 4:14 am)Undeceived Wrote: No one was proposing space arranging into a being "prior to the beginning of the universe." They were, however, explaining that the first cause in the chain must have no beginning--it must be pure actuality. This could be a divine being, or an undiscovered force (no evidence). Or there could be a way for our current natural laws to be violated, eliminating the need for a cause->effect (with all evidence to the contrary). Again I ask, which is the most plausible to you? Or do you have another proposition to add to the list?
Its called a singularity - look it up.
(December 1, 2012 at 4:14 am)Undeceived Wrote: Time starts the instant time itself comes into existence. In the timeline of time, time is at point 0. There is no "before" but we can look back and say there was a start. If you see this differently, please explain.
Wrong again. Time cannot "come into existence" and there can be no "point 0". Where there is a point 0, there would also be points -1, -2 and so on. If there is a "start" there would be a "before the start".
