Eternity or the 'prime mover'?

Basically there are two theories about the beginning of the world (or about the beginning of everything, to be more accurate).

1. there is no beginning, everything is eternal in some way and everything has ever existed in some way.

2. there was some start, there was a point in time where everything began, or let's put it this way: where time began. Before that there was nothing.

There is one problem with both of there theories. As a human being both is unimaginable.

You can't imagine eternity because you always look for a starting point. We are used to the thought that everything has a cause. Eternity means that 'everything is everything at any time'. Actually there even is no real time.

But you can't imagine either that there was nothing before everything started because then there couldn't have been the possibility of existing a cause for starting time.

So why is everything when there also could be nothing?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'll try.

The first theory about everything being eternal is simply inadequate. It's a crutch that our feeble, human minds must use in order to try and contemplate what we don't yet understand. Every past mystery that was thought to be 'eternal' has turned out to have an explanation, just like everything else, once we understood it. It's not even really regarded as a legitimate theory anymore - 'it just is' is no longer satisfying.

There are actually many theories of how the world began, beyond the big bang and intelligent design. String theory, a multiverse theory, etc. I actually subscribe to the idea of a multiverse and the big bang occurred when two other verses collided with one another and a piece of another verse started expanding - or something like that.

Have you seen the very end of 'Men In Black'? That makes more sense to me than any of the other theories that are commonly accepted.

EDIT: I found a video!