Does existence need a beginning?

It is possible that the universe is cyclical. There is a theory called the 'Big Crunch' where the universe (after a certain amount of expansion) will contract and implode within itself, and create another Big Bang. Maybe this is how we got this universe?

I've been having this discussion off-and-on with my dad for a few months now. He's a Catholic and I find religion tedious, so I usually take the perpetual existence side. I think I'll take the creationist side for this discussion.
Every event, no matter how small or important, is the effect of one or more corresponding, preceding causes. This is fact. However, is not every cause also an effect as well? Science alone absolutely cannot comprehend existence as a whole. It never will. This is because it eventually reaches a repeating, endless cycle of "And what caused that to be?".
Eternity and Infinity are not scientifically sound ideas. They are philosophical notions that have no place in pure rational thought. However, when dealing with the idea of an "Ultimate Origin", they are inevitable.
The only logical solution is to take a step away from logic.

tl;dr: Discussions on the Origin of Everything will always lead to the Identity, and are inherently beyond logic.

I think that everything has a beginning. In my mind everything has a distinct moment when it started to exist. That moment may not be apparent, but to me it's always there.

This is my issue with the whole "everything needs to be created" argument. Yes everything we can see in it's present form had to be made that way by some process or another, but matter and energy are the forces acted upon to create these creations. Even when created it's just matter taking another form of what already exists. That being said I don't see why matter or energy needs a beginning. It's presence doesn't call for it nor is it really required in this instance. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying it would make perfect sense if it didn't. Also, the universe barring matter and energy is what? Space, empty space. It has not measure, it is simply nothing. Does nothing really need to be created? The premise in of itself is beyond comprehension and seem inherently contradictory. However I will say that once again this is entirely possible just on many level not probable. If nothing had to be created then nothing would intact be something, and if that really is the case then scientist would have to look at our universe in an entirely different way.

Next, we really do have to look beyond our own universe. We inhabit one of possibly infinite numbers, and perhaps in some universes matter and energy were required creations and in others matter and energy are transcendent of time. If multi-verse theory is correct then our science could be meaningless elsewhere, and if that's the case even if our universe require one thing another may not which means technically if you think about it depending on where you are, the answer to the question can be yes or no. So I suppose the question now is which universe are we in?

I choose to believe that it is possible our beginning came from someone else's end.

While the probability is unimaginably unlikely, there's a chance that an exact replica of a fork can just appear. This is derived from quantum mechanics. It's close to impossible, but just a little anecdote.

There's a theory stating that the universe popped out of nothing; we know that at quantum level, particles can come into existence out of nothing. And since the universe at the very beginning was as small as a particle, it's a plausible theory.

Well, theory.
I stick to what makes sense to me for now, until that theory can be proven.

The only logic explanation is that things (in some form) have always been there. Else you get stuck in the "but what created the thing that created the thing that created...."-loop.

While I do believe that everything has a beginning, there's always something that intrigues me; what is the beginning of the primordial beginning?

I remember a quote from a philosophy book I had read 3 years ago...
"nothing cannot come out of something" and yet something can come out of nothing...


your question basically answers itself. existence is not something that starts at the middle... it always begins and always ends... it's a cycle which is continuous and applies to everything. and when I say everything, It encompasses the whole universe.

I get the feeling that everyone talks about different kinds of "existences" and not the one as specified by the OP.

But if existence is a cycle, then wouldn't that mean its beginning and ends are mere illusions? Recall that matter can't be created or destroyed, so with that in mind, where does the "end" lie within the cycle? You even mentioned yourself that nothing cannot come out of something. What happens to the something when it ends? Does it turn to nothing?

This is Serious Discussion. Do not post like this where you add nothing to the conversation and only take up space. It's in the forum rules. Reported.

"Does existence need a beginning?" of course it does. Everything has a start and end.

No.
Things were always there.

Give me just one credible proof and ill retract my posts in this thread.

Prove that there was a specific beginning. And I don't mean some reasoned-out argument, I want real proof.

Then this thread should be ended with an "Agree to disagree" unless someone is going to dedicate their entire being into figuring it out. All i know is that i have a start and finish.

This thread is not about persuading others, it asks a question and only needs an answer. Many SD threads turn into agreeing to disagree.