right. i said "beginning". not simply the beginning of the earth. and there's no good naturalistic explanation for either, so what's your point?
Read the topic title.
look at the idea of the "Big Bang", or of the silly ideas of a "singularity", or that everything came from nothing while trying to support it with ideas like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and other ideas. read a science textbook, and you'll see how quickly they explain away the difficulty of the origin of the universe. read "A Brief History of Nearly Everything" (forgot the author's name), and many other textbooks with this same kind of explanation (especially school textbooks).
I don't know about your schoolbooks but in mine it just said that this is the mainstream view in science at the moment.
we do only have a certain vantage point of time, but we can understand other connecting principles that help us in this area. the fact that matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created according to the first law of Thermodynamics, and that this universe is moving toward a "heat death" means that it can't have lasted forever, else it would have reached this state an infinite time ago.
The universe may have reached this state an infinite time ago, who knows? You don't and neither do I.
because you're able to sit there at your computer, and ask that question. there must've been a successive addition of previous moments in order for that moment to have been reached. but if there were infinite moments before that moment, it would never have been actualized.
There will be an infinite number of moments after this specific moment, there has been an infinite number of moments before this specific moment and now we are in the next moment.
Infinity and time are 2 things humans hardly understand. Combine then and we understand even less, so lets not make things impossible just yet.
and that idea is based on what? your need for that explanation to be right in order to try and make sense of all this? it's actually more likely that what your saying is entirely wrong, especially since such a thing has never been demonstrated, only theoretically.
This idea is based on the fact that 2 masses attract eachother and on the idea that all energy in the universe was at a very small point in some point in time. Something that science shows is very likely to have been the case.
there we go. that's exactly the kind of "explaining away" that i'm talking about. that idea is simply a desparate explanation that shows your own religious axioms here and forces you to deny an actual First Cause. Thanks.
And what would God be then?
What causes God? Why is there a God? Why is there anything?
Questions none of us can answer, so why bother with claiming that my speculations are worse then yours?