Interesting poll indeed :up:

The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end. — Benj96

This is the theory which I stand for. But, instead of considering "equal" the beginning and the end, I see it as the one/unique movement/power which is concentrated in itself. Greeks usted to debate a lot of Alpha (beginning) Omega (the end). I like the point where it is defended that one of the most characteristic acts in the human nature are "born" and "die", thus, "beginning" and "end"
Universe is infinite, we humans are just passing through until our extinction.

Factum est: ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis.
It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. :flower:

This is the theory which I stand for. — javi2541997

Aye, theory siblings, you and I. And yes, infinite is more like it. Beginning and end are human interpolations because we detect patterns through time. No actual such thing, Einstein showed this with relativity.

Yes! :up: I personally think is the most reasonable theory. Nevertheless, I respect the others points of views

Yes! :up: I personally think is the most reasonable theory. Nevertheless, I respect the others points of views — javi2541997

Me too, Javi. I just wish they'd respect mine most of the time. Ever heard of General Systems Theory??

Other options - please elaborate. — Benj96

There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist.

Ever heard of General Systems Theory??

No, I never heard about this theory. What's about?

There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist. — Fooloso4

Could it be that “cause” is “existence”? In this way there is no need for cause indeed as it is synonymous with existence itself. Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do.

The verb “to be” may answer to no one. It simple “is”.

Other options - please elaborate. — Benj96

At planck radius, "the universe" was a runaway – inflationary – cosmic-thermal entropic effect of an acausal (spontaneous symmetry-breaking) vacuum fluctuation^. There was no "beginning", just cosmological development^ that is measurable with contemporary physics to minus c13.8 billions years back from t=0 (today).

Like a sphere, torus, loop ..., it makes no more sense to conceive of spacetime^ as bounded having a first point (i.e. "beginning") as it does to conceive of Earth having an edge (e.g. "north of the North Pole").

Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s).

My Creed has six items as follows:

I do not know the original cause of existence.
I do not believe anyone else knows.
I do not believe that anyone has a plausible account that would be likely to command widespread consensus.
I believe that if anyone has ever stated the original cause of existence truthfully, then it was sheer luck.
I believe that we will never know whether such a truthful statement has ever been made or by whom.
I do not believe that any assertion or denial as to the original cause of existence has any basis whatsoever.

The original cause of existence is, in that respect, quite unlike the cause of the formation of clouds, which are (relatively speaking) fairly well understood.

Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s). — 180 Proof

Ah yes i see what you mean. I often, like many, struggle to distinguish between that which is (exists and is objective) and that does not - in any “real” sense but which is merely a construct or concept used in order to make comprehension easier.

Fields and possibilities and waves, probabilities, potential vs the cold hard particulate objective world. The scope of “existence” in this way perplexes me. As I often wonder does it extend to feelings, dreams, ideas or is it merely that which is measurable in some physical external sense. I wonder where that which exists has its limits with the imaginary. Where something borders nothingness. I believe it is human tendency to make everything concrete. To imagine quarks as solid things as opposed to mathematically demonstrable oscillations that themselves are not tangible. Is maths something that exists as a physical logic or is it a human tool to navigate the physical world which has no application other than in our comprehension?

We have been arguing about what is real and what is not for millennia, I suspect this won’t be soon resolved.

I don't see why this matters, at all.
Compare these two questions:

1) How did life originate?
2) Now that life has originated, what should we do?

I'm willing to hear another viewpoint of course, but as I currently see it, 2) is interesting, 1) is empty and distracting.

Well, I think it is interesting debate about the origin of everything... If is it matters? Why not

I know that the list in the poll is not exhaustive — Benj96

Not exhaustive??? This is the longest poll list I have ever list by far!
Then, if you think that it isn't exhaustive, why don't you just ask everyone to present his/her version?

What theory or proposition do you hold as to the original cause of existence — Benj96

Your question is incomplete: you should add the word "Universe" next to "existence", even if --or, especially because-- it is contained in the options, since alone, this term can refer to a lot of things.

Also, the word "original" is redundant. Can there also be a "second" or "later" or "newer" cause of the existence of the Universe? In fact of the existence of enything? A cause is something that makes X happen. After X has happened the cause and effect relationship and the corresp. phenomenon are complete.

Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do. — Benj96

I don't think that existence is the ability to be. We say of things that are or that we claim are that they exist. It is not the ability to be but that fact of being.

To put it in a way that may seem paradoxical or contradictory - existence does not exist. But there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about that statement.

I respect that it may be fun or interesting, as a matter of preference. Definitely ask the questions if you enjoy it.

But for me,
I don't think questions about the origin of the universe are interesting, because no matter what the answer is, the end result is the same. Namely, the end result is the world we have to deal with today. In other words, the next question AFTER "how did the universe originate" is already accessible to us. So we just don't need "how did the universe originate". Instead, I'm insanely curious about what we should/ will do, now that it has.

I think we can be certain about what necessarily cannot be real: impossible objects, impossible worlds; anything else, no matter how improbable, is a possible version of reality (i.e. possible way the world could have been or can be aptly described). I've speculated here from the perspective of .

We can only know what we should/could do if we know when everything started on the beginning :flower: :up:
If you think so closely, you would check a lot of theories so the results are not necessarily the same

Okay that is interesting.

I don't think we have to know how things started from the beginning to make decisions, I think we can just guess if we want. But maybe you disagree with that, which would be awesome, because then it would be the kind of conversation about what we should do that I thought would be better.

But I will admit you raise a very good point.

It could be the universe is eternal and infinite in extent, in which big banged universe follow each other up. Not expanding and contracting and expanding, etc. But serial expanding universes all with their own beginning of time caused by the preceding universe. And guess who brought it all into existence? It were the gods clapping their tales or howling the words.

How did life originate? — SatmBopd

The rotation of the Earth is of uttermost importance. Day and night, sleep and wake, hot and cold, they are the important features that give matter and the vital divine spark in it the means to evolve by moving away from thermodynamic equilibrium bit by bit. The flow of heat reverses daily in the rythm of day and night. Matter receives from the Sun at daytime and radiates during night. The equilibrium can never be reached, giving matter structures a means to evolve between the heat and the cold. Creatures come crawling out of the swamps, start roaming in seas, start growing out of the earth, and walk on the land.

And a lot of the options have considerable overlap and could be both explained simultaneously. — Benj96

As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history.

I don't think the human brain is capable of "understanding" time. There are endless arguments about beginnings or eternities but its like a dog trying to understand calculus.

Contemplating such topics brings madness and vexation.

There are endless arguments about beginnings or eternities but its like a dog trying to understand calcul — jgill

Well, there is one element of calculus they understand. The greater than or more than comparison. They always want to fetch the bigger stick and want more.
Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion.

As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods.

I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods. — EugeneW

I think mainly because the first cause or cosmological argument is an easy one to understand and make and enthusiastic Protestant apologists in the English speaking world have often adapted the Kalam cosmological argument to good results with the folks. 'Common sense' apologetics often do best.

The universe is about 70% dark energy. Dark energy is timeless. Another 25% is dark 'matter' that could also be timeless. The remaining 5% is plasma, like the stars, then there is scattered galactic dusting of minute amounts of what we call ordinary matter.

So the universe started as concentrated pure energy and will end as ultra-thinned out pure energy. Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it?

As usual, the beginning is obscured from view, We can only hypothesize i.e. speculate on such matters; quite unfortunate. It's as if we've awoken from a deep slumber and find ourselves in strange surroundings. How did we get here? Our story begins in medias res, the narrator, if there's one, has failed to record, much to our chagrin, the origins of our universe. Fear not, logic to the rescue - the OP, in my humble opinion, has managed to narrow down the possibilities to a handful. Deduce, abduce, induce, friends (and foes) and shed light on the matter.

If one gives it some thought, clearly there's a paradox: per kind favor of memory, the past should be something we have a handle on, the future being uncertain. Yet here we are...bewildered and angry too I suppose.

Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion. — EugeneW

Motion without time. You're on a roll!

The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end. — Benj96

I voted for this because the universe is not bounded. The everything is the universe. We gave meaning to time, but without us, it has no meaning or existence at all. But -- there's decay! How about that. Stars die out.

Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it? — magritte

It sounds interesting as hell that universe could be timeless because this can means that the concept of "time" itself is just a human concept or... A limit one