Not so long ago, I read (I believe in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) that in order to learn something, one must have a comparable/contrastable thing in order to form the concept of said existent. Lacking this, everything else is pure speculation. This is an excellent (although widely ignored by proponents) argument against the existence of an omniscient and/or omnipotent being; A being cannot possess these qualities since there is nothing in reality that one could compare said qualities to.

Sometime before, I had read a post stating that the axiom of existence proves that the universe has always existed (versus being created).

When I integrate these two concepts into my mental archive, they seem to contradict. I see several possibilities for this:
1. They actually do contradict. How can one prove that the universe has always existed with out having a universe (or lack thereof) with which to compare and/or contrast. Please note that I am not arguing against the existence of the universe, only attempting to resolve the concept of its prior eternal existence.
2. They do not contradict. Somewhere I have missed crucial information that would resolve this for me instantly.
3. One of the premises is incorrect. ?
4. I am mixing epistemological knowledge with scientific knowledge. This is by far the one I consider least likely since very rarely do I actually dichotomize concepts and concretes in my mind.

Any thoughts?

Idoni