CYVIN

Me too - Occam's Razor rulz!!!

Have you imagined what would be the implications if there ws no such thing as nothing? What if there's only all that exists, and it's infinite (like a neverending sea of energy)?

What if it's just as simple as that: "The universe is the sum of all that exists, and is infinite."
Where did it come from? It never came from anywhere - it is the sum total of everything. It cannot be created nor destroyed, for it is energy! It could never have not existed, for that would require the creation of energy, which is impossible. It is impossible for it to not exist.

This is how I'm starting to imagine it.

Under quantum mechanics, conservation of energy is not applicable as in this case energy can not always be defined, which is known as the uncertainty principle. The rule you state "energy cannot be created or destroyed only transfered", isn't applicable. Because at the point of the big bang, Einstein's general theory of relativity would have broken down, as it does not include the uncertainity principle, and thus classical mechanics do not apply.

I'm seeing a pattern here... conservation of energy not applicable under quantum mechanics... general theory of relativity breaks down... do you think we might still see the uncertainty principle breaking down sometime in the future too?

If energy cannot always be defined in that case, then it would suggest to me that there is a greater chance that the theory finding it undefinable being at fault, than energy itself being non-existant through its (then held) property of being undefinable.

I've got a question for you: If you had two sets, A being a set of everything that exists (in some form), and B a set of everything that does not exist, which set would you put "nothingness" or "non-existence" into?

You are right about there being a great chance of theories breaking down. Because without observing the phenomenon, it stays in a state superposition. And because of this, this is why scientists invented the uncertainty principle, because they are unable to be measured. The uncertainty principle is not taken into account in traditional physics theories, which is why they cannot be used in these cases.

See, this is the biggest point about all this, we cannot really know what we can not observe. We can predict, we can average, we can guess, we can create theories.... but until anyone observes it or tests them, the true nature or beginning or cause of the universe is unknown.

It's not imperative that it have an origin, but one of the basic things that we want to know is "where did we come from" and "where are we going". 

I think that what you said is very true.

I'm a diehard evolutionist.  I think I'm in the minority.  And you?

I get what you saying but what do you beleive is true?? Evolution or Creationsim???

I'm not big on succumbing to "the alternative close" sales plot, actually. I believe there are many an 'ism out there that's yet to be discovered that will supercede both creationism and evolution in times to come.

My current view is that while evolution is unmistakenly evident that we don;t even look like out parents, so there's definitely changes taking place over the generations, besides the evidences presented with the evolution argument.
At the same time, there's also a good possibilit, if not probability, that there exists or once existed or one day might exist forms of intelligence higher than our own (eg baboons), and beings much more powerful than us (eg elephants).

So we could be looking at a mixture of the two - being some higher form's lab-rats on the one hand, but yet mutating of our own at the same time.

I guess that's how I feel.  I live in the "Bible Belt" of the US.