Why must the universe have a "beginning"?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Seemingly all matter within the range of human perception can be traced back to a specific origin. Your house was designed and assembled on site by construction crews. Your car was most likely manufactured in an assembly line in Detroit. The parts comprising your computer were constructed in various spots around China, India, and the United States.

Niether a house, a car, nor a computer are capable of independent manifestation; each requires a creator. Consequently, many (scientists included) automatically assume that this concept must likewise apply to the macro-universe and the various entities it comprises. Matter cannot just 'exist'. It must be created, hence the existance of this planet, that sun, those stars, and every galactical body in between.

But is it illogical, in regard to the universe and it's origin, to abandon this law under the presumption that the matter comprising our surroundings (not to mention our very being) has ALWAYS been here, in one shape or form? The perpetual universe theory (not sure if it has ever been assigned a specific name, so I will make one up) holds that all existing matter has/will be present throughout eternity, constantly evolving.

More specifically, is the state of nothingness metaphysically plausible? Can a realm be utterly void of all matter, particles, and forces associated with the physical world? A vacuum is the obvious solution, but scientists have long since determined that even these are comprised of certain various entities which will react with oncomming matter such as light. To imagine a state of nothingness is beyond the realm of human perception. We can picture a black void, of course, but even 'black' is considered to "something".

Whether our puny subjective minds can imagine such a state is another issue entirely, but more towards the real subject at hand; can the state of nothingness persist in the objective world? Could it have existed (or not existed, rather) before the presumed "beginning" of our universe?

[Grumpy]

An aside, but one that illustrates(a little) and illuminates(again, a little)

Some people say the glass is half empty
Some say it is half full
An engineer says you have twice as much glass as you need
A physicist says you have a zillion ergs of potential energy
A philosopher asks "Are you sure there is a glass?" and "Does water really exist?"
A psychiatrist questions the glass's motivation and goals
A meteorologist says"We can expect more rain"
I say"Mmm, good water!"

Grumpy

[Jenchol]

i think this theory could be possible, but scientists claim it to be impossible because having a beginning makes everything seem so stable.

not having a beginning means the possibilty of not having an end.

it is confusing for the mind.

but i believe intellectuals can understand it, and i can really understand it.

i believe its very possible.

[Greatest I Am]

If the universe has no beginning, it follows that it has no middle or end.
Since we are here as part of this universe, possibly somewhere in the middle, we can say that since it has a middle, it must have a beginning. If not we do not exist.
Since we do exist, I think, then I think this is proof enough for anyone.

Regards

DL

[Cathar1950]

If the universe has no beginning, it follows that it has no middle or end.
Since we are here as part of this universe, possibly somewhere in the middle, we can say that since it has a middle, it must have a beginning. If not we do not exist.
Since we do exist, I think, then I think this is proof enough for anyone.

Regards

DL

Maybe we are part of the universe that does have a begining.
If God didn't have a begining then God would also not exist by your reasoning.
What is this proof of?