I actually don't believe in any choices. I don't believe in big-bang, which would be the only relevant choice to discuss here.
I believe in theory of constant cycle:

"The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle."

That is most credible theory in my opinion.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

But how does the cycle begin? Sure, one action causes another, then causes another, then another. But, what action caused the one action to happen? And what caused that action to cause the one action happen. And what caused that action to cause the other action to cause the one action to happen? There has to be a beginning. Without a beginning, nothing would happen. Like with God. God created man in His own likeness. But who created the likeness of God in the first place? Whatever the beginning is, people shouldn't be worrying about it so much. Whatever has happened, has happened. Leave it at that. I'm much more interested in the ending than the beginning anyway.

There was no beginning. For some reason human mind seems to be confined to certain bounds, i.e. there must be the beginning and the end.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/...licuniverse.htm

Article explains the theory.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

Good article, but it seems that these scientists' brains are running around in circles along with their universe. They haven't really answered anything. We could be in an endless cycle right now, but the cycle did have to start somewhere. Thats basic human logic. Saying that there is no beginning and that the universe always existed seems just as confining as saying "Adam and Eve were born and life continued from there." For the universe to exist, there has to be a point where it didn't exist. You can't count to one without starting with zero. And Constant Cycle does not address that zero factor.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Good article, but it seems that these scientists' brains are running around in circles along with their universe. They haven't really answered anything. We could be in an endless cycle right now, but the cycle did have to start somewhere. Thats basic human logic. Saying that there is no beginning and that the universe always existed seems just as confining as saying "Adam and Eve were born and life continued from there." For the universe to exist, there has to be a point where it didn't exist. You can't count to one without starting with zero. And Constant Cycle does not address that zero factor.

Take a basic mathematics course and learn what infinity is. There did not have to be a beginning, there does not have to be an end, and "basic human logic" suggests nothing of the sort. Religion and religion alone teaches you that there was a beginning.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Don't be a fool. Mathematics DOES teach you that zero is the constant. Just because there are an infinite number of fractions between zero and one, doesn't change the fact that one (or one half, or one millionth, etc...) comes AFTER zero on the numeric scale. And don't start talking about negative numbers. When talking about time, negative numbers have no application other than signifying a moment before a given point on a timeline. And that moment, signified by a negative, is still a moment that occured AFTER another moment further back in that timeline. Now let me make this clear. I absolutely do NOT believe in any kind of God. And if I did I would probably be asking where that God came from. I think all religion is an exploitation of people's ignorance, and is driven by fear and guilt, especially Christianity. But there has to be a beginning. Its physics. For an object to be in motion, it must be set in motion. This applies to the Universe just as much as it does to anything else. Where that beginning would be; I'm not so bold as to tell you as some seem to think they can. I especially don't think that the beginning will EVER be found within our existance. Not as long as we continue to have the ability to ask questions without being stifled by mindless, non-forward thinking, religious intervention.

But, you're right on one thing, Diginut. There doesn't have to be an end. But that's not the debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Don't be a fool. Mathematics DOES teach you that zero is the constant. Just because there are an infinite number of fractions between zero and one, doesn't change the fact that one (or one half, or one millionth, etc...) comes AFTER zero on the numeric scale. And don't start talking about negative numbers. When talking about time, negative numbers have no application other than signifying a moment before a given point on a timeline. And that moment, signified by a negative, is still a moment that occured AFTER another moment further back in that timeline.

I looked as hard I could to find the equation and solution to Einsteins GTR but all the solutions could not reach zero in any way, so in this cause zero is the absolute beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Now let me make this clear. I absolutely do NOT believe in any kind of God. And if I did I would probably be asking where that God came from. I think all religion is an exploitation of people's ignorance, and is driven by fear and guilt, especially Christianity.

I totally agree with you here, there had to be some thing that created god and something that created that thing and so on and so forth. Couple sites one defending Creationism and one kinda supporting Big Bang (albeit weak sites).

http://www.deafhope.org/theater/theatr1.htm
http://www.dd-b.net/~raphael/jain-list/msg00111.html

And here's one showing the ignorance of religious followers.

http://www.birdville.org/text/originoftheuni.html

even with the your Zero theory there had to be something before that zero time as you stated.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce But there has to be a beginning. Its physics. For an object to be in motion, it must be set in motion.

And I believe the beginning of the universe will never be found, before the end that is.

*EDIT* I know I make a weak argument on either side but I'm more set on my belief system.

In this case, when I use the term "zero," what I really mean is "nothing." No mass, no matter, no elements, nothing. Just empty space. If the universe gradually grew and evolved into what it is now, it had to start from nothing. The universe can't begin from a single element. Because you can still ask "where did that element come from?" The beginning of the universe lies where you can no longer ask those kinds of questions. And you cannot ask "where did nothing come from?" because, well, nothing is there. Then comes a new question. "How something be created from nothing?" And that is a question that I will neither answer or debate. My brain hurts just thinking about it.

Oy, I think my heads gonna explode.

Good. Then My devine plan is working perfectly. Excellent...

First StealthAssassin, then the Universe.

^^^^ROFLMAO

Good one, as long as I can rule over at least two planets.