[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

The core of my question is whether or not science can prove or disprove the concept of 'no beginning' because everything must have a 'cause'.

Brian, there are no 'proofs' of any theories in Science … never has been, never will be..

Originally Posted by Brian W

Now let us, just for fun, assume that time is just an illusion. I am not sure that the absence of time neccesitates the absence of cause and effect.

If time is absent, then the terms 'cause' and 'effect' would seem to be meaningless … 'effect' could precede 'cause', 'cause' might precede 'effect', the two might be co-incident, the two might not even be correlated as relationships involve connectedness and hence direction, etc, etc …

If you remove time, you remove the observer as it was an illusion in the mind of the observer…

Originally Posted by Brian W

From my simplistic mind comes this thought.

If through research, observation and meticulous record keeping I find that it is apparently impossible to get a 'result' without a 'cause' I feel that in the true spirit of science I have proved that results need causes.

Seems to me you have also implied a starting condition as well … which again, re-establishes time, and an observer … in this case, yourself.

Originally Posted by Brian W

As I mentioned,

Does that not neccesitate an infinity of causes?

Please note this does not bring in 'higher intelligence', 'self awareness' or 'G-d'

I am simply putting forward two interconnected ideas (1) everything needs a cause, (2) therefore there can be no first cause.

If there above is correct then the universe (for lack of a better term) may have an ending but it can have no beginning.

Brian

Its interesting that our brains are geared to our perception of the passing of time. Even our language contains the essence of time. The terms you're using above "cause" effect", "results" etc all imply a direction of time, to me.
It also seems to me that the best we can do, is observe things flowing from past, (or present), to the future and, maybe rewind events from the future to the past in our models. As soon as you delete time from any of this, even our language breaks down and becomes meaningless.

Perhaps this is what existed when there was nothing … meaninglessness ..?

This conversation has completely departed the realms of science. At best, plausible logic could develop something from it, but it would not be science … pure philosophy at best … better off in the hands of metaphysics.

Cheers