The beginning...

At the exact moment of creation, there had to be a potential of something becoming.
The potential was a result of the premises for a pure coincidence being met(no cause, no reason).
A self-confirming existence was triggered by the potential(cause) and pure coincidence(reason).

Any thoughts?

This is assuming that existance came to be created at some point and not that it simply always was?

Or only specifically our universe in relation to an already apparent existance?

I’m guessing you are moving the arguement on from that point though.

You can say that it was created, but also that it has always been, since “before” this event there was “none”.

So the second sentence, yes?

I don’t think that a purely exclusive ‘‘self-confirming existance’’ can stand up in this case.

Only if existance had a moment of exclusive creation(unlikely) would this be the case as it would be the only possible explanation.

Well, how do we define existence and to exist?

I guess I am open for a already apparent existence one that falls outside the definition of existence!

I call it the X-istence!

Yes, I think I see what you’re saying…

An exclusive moment of creation for our universe, upon it’s creation and due to it’s creation a set of laws specific to our universe were created independant of the already apparent existance from where it came.

Under these circumstances then, I suppose the theory can be possible.

It’s a little conditional to be likely, though.

Could you say a little more on why its little conditional to be likely`?

Well, M-theory/String-theory, whatever you like to call it, seems more likely as there is a common link which can be drawn between all universes, this is more logical.

This here theory depends on sub-space being in no way connected to the universe it creates aside from the fact that it created it, this is not logical.

Also there is much evidence for an interaction between sub-space and other universes on our universe, this puts the theory of a ‘‘self-confirming existance’’ on it’s head, because in the process of interaction the other universes and sub-space they have confirmed the existance of our universe, and this is external.

Yes, I see what you mean!

Thats why I usually add the term "Abso. intet" witch is a link to "X-istence". "Abso. intet" I can not quite explain, but I like to say that it is the opposite of eternity`.
I can not quite find words to describe “Abso. intet” as it is indescribable.

But I guess this is to incomplete for anyone to understand what I`m talking about!

In absence of anything, there would be the state of “Abso. intet”.

At the exact moment of birth there was:

Within “Abso. intet” a potential.

This potentialis, because of the premises (no cause, no reason) for pure coincidence being met by “Abso. intet”.

The potential is for pure coincidence to occur, and so it did.

Out of potentialand by pure coincidence, a self-creating existence was born.

I’m guessing that ‘‘potential’’ as you describe it is not the normal definition?

More defining the lack that was inherent in the already apparent existance that allowed the conception of our universe, rather than anything got to do with matter?

All in all, it’s a very nice theory but the evidence is not only lacking, it points in the opposite direction.

In the beginning there was Intelligence and there was Energy. That was it, just the two, alone and floating separately within the Great Void.

One day Intelligence stumbled upon Energy and fell instantly in love with her. Her warmth and magnetism was more than his cold, aloof heart could bear. He knew he must have her.

She agreed to his proposal and the two embraced. Their union culminated in that great orgasmic event (that science would eons later, refer to as the Big Bang) and instantly spread the seeds of creativity throughout the Great Void.

Galaxies, Solar Systems, and the small planet Earth were all formed at the moment Intelligence took Energy to be His bride.

You see, it’s all about sex.

…but then where did the energy come from? No matter what we summise: we will never know what the initial starting point, conditions, and available material, were: that created ‘things’…

Intelligence and energy is as far as I can go…the rest falls into the “great mystery catagory”

something I’m sure that will end any discussion on the beginnings of creation