Broken Circle

Eternal existence means existence had no cause. If in the beginning there was a true void and existence came to occupy the void without reason, this is also existence without cause. Philosphically then, I don't see a difference between the two viewpoints. They both hold as assumptions that existence was not created but just is or just became.

This description of existence ex-nihilo differs from the literal interpretation of the words, and it's an important distinction. If you think of existence ex-nihilo as literally nothing creating something, then you immediately fall into a semantics trap, as many have pointed out here. Think of it more as a total void in which existence came to occupy, without cause.

I only prefer this over a description under eternal existence since it avoids some ambiguities and doesn't hide the assumption that existence without cause is not rational, and therefore requires a miracle however you look at existence.

But again, it is probably of more practical value to discuss the nature of existence rather than the existence of existence itself.

Patrick,

"Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time."[unquote]

Ans: Whatever color wrapping paper you choose to put it in "Without beginning or end" is a description - The exact same description in Webster for infinity. Claiming it is timeless does not alter the infinite quality being invoked.

You are in COMPLETE contradiction with yourself. You are claiming that you can create oranges(existence) from apples(non-existence). What you are missing is that what ever you call them they are both fruit and fruit can only exist. Fruit CANNOT be "non-existence", it is fruit.[unquote]


Ans" Here you go again. I never said I created apples (+) out of oranges(-), both of which are indeed "Something". I am creating both apples and oranges from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>.

Third, you claim that "existence"(The Universe) has come from "". However, by definition(provided by JoeW) the creation and the creator of anything which exists must too exist itself.[unquote]

Ams:

1 - Nothing personal to JoeW or anybodyelse, what they say is required is not necessarily any more correct that what you or I say is required. I don't think you will find any detailed sceintific studies of this issue or a general concensus among scientist.

2 - What you seem to be missing is that <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> DOES EXIST but that that fact does NOT thereby cause it to be "Someting". What exists is "Nothing".

I am under no obligation to detail how <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> becomes "Something" no more than you would be to prove a creator.

3 - You and I began to discuss this issue over infinity. We both agreed that infinity is not reality. But much later you have invoked the concept of "Eternal Energy" (Which is Infinity in masked as being something timeless). I have not changed my view once and for that reason I believe I will not expend further time on the issue. You can claim whtever you choose, that will not alter the facts or history.

Patrick,

quote]First, I just showed you that "Non-existence" could not be the creator of "Existence". [unquote]

1 - You didn't show me anything, you made unfounded declarations which you can't support other than by faith.

2 - I havn't thrown my glove down and walked off. Offer something other than "Look, I'm telling you how it works" and I'll listen but I do think two dozen trips around the same path merits a breather. I have other things to do but repeat prior positions and clarify distortions.

3 - You read it perfectly clear. Guess you don't agree.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Tone it down guys! Perhaps agree to disagree and let it be? Thanks

Mark Vitrone

i wonder what you guyS think of HALTON ARP'S ideas (actually observations)on how galaxies and quasars come to be (his book SEEING RED) HALTON figures that matter is created within the center of the galaxies and that this new matter is in the form of quasars,which is then expelled from the galaxy.which in turn become galaxies. also people like DR.PAULO CORREA & ALEXSNDRA CORREA who have a aether motor.many years ago i was thinking that perhaps two nothings came together (now i know this sounds bizzare but hear me out)they were nothing only because on there own they could not become a "substance" or manifest themselves but when they past each other they caused a spark if i may,i now find that these nothings could be forms of energy.so what has this got to do with infinity?well,when i think of infinity i think of "space" that is infinite.you can"t destroy space (and i mean this in a universe context,not a room etc.)and perhaps space is what came first which allowed energy to become!!

Patrick,

Mac, what I don't agree with, and CANNOT agree to disagree on, is that you have AGAIN switched your position.

First,(From Mac) [But "NOTHINGNESS" can and does exist in reality. I'm sure you will have to read this a few times over.]

Second,(From Mac) [and lets use for "Nothing" instead of "0".]

Third,(From Mac) [More importantly 'NOTHINGNESS' doesn't require a "First cause". Simply bifurcate "Nothing" and you have "Something".]

Fourth,(From Mac)["Nothingness" is "Non-existance".]

Fifth,(From Mac) " DOES EXIST".

Okay, you went from Does exist to DoesN’t exist and now back to DOES(all caps) exist. Yet you claim it is me who is changing my story. [unquote]


Ans: Apparently Patrick the problem is in your understanding of the meaning of words. There is NOT one reversal in your list. The only one that I see you might not understand is your Fourth. I did not say "Nothingness" is "Non-Existant", I said it is Non-existance. That is to say "Nothingness" and "Non-Existance" are one and the same thing.

quote:

---

(Mac)The arguement resulted that "0" doesnot and cannot ever exist. That there is no such thing as "0". That "0" must always be something.

---

I forgot to add this one to the list of 5 in the prior post, this is the one that started out this thread.

So it actually went,
Does Not,
Does,
Does Not,
Does.

Ans: Here is why I will not continue this discussion Patrick. Above you accuse me of changing my view multiple times when the reality is it hasn't changed even once. This last statement with regard to "0" is always "Something" WAS NOT MY POSITION. That was not my arguement. I merely referenced the arguement to which I DISAGREED.

I thought I have offered you more than "Trust Me...". Mac, if logical arguement means nothing to you then why do you even participate in these discussions?
How could it be the same path if you keep changing your view? It seems to me that you are caught up in your own circular logic and the reason is because you refuse to SEE another view besides your own.[unquote]

You say that I am the one who can't see any other view besides my own. Perhaps the reason is because mine makes logical sense, doesn't seem to be refutable by logical arguement, and that yours collapses under logical scrutiny.[unquote]

Ans: Consider the start of this paragraph and your conclusion. I do believe you make my point for me. This is nothing more than "Because I am right and the rest of you are wrong". You assume to much.

You, 123..., and JoeW have all made excellent argument and I warned you in advance that you would probably find yourself on my side of the fence eventually.[unquote]

Ans: All the above and in particular this last paragraph is why I choose not to continue this discussion with you. Do you really believe you are that good. Think again.

1 - Eternal invokes infinity if you like to admit it or not.

2 - Pure energy is "Something". It is something to which you fail to provide an origin but argue it has always existed.

*********************************************************************
You accused me and others multiple times of changing our views but that you never do. Look again Patrick:

3a -

Oh, by the way, do you see the "God" aspect of it yet? It ties all of the
religions of the world into understanding that they all worship the same
exact God. A religious unification. I guess that might aid in World peace,
imagine that! I really think that this is THE grand unification sought by
Einstein.[unquote]

b -

Oh well, I guess at least he is with God.[unquote]

c -

Where have I claimed existence is because of God?[unquote]


Ans: It is indeed you that flip flops on issues. Against infinity but want to declare eternity. You are trying to prove God through science but deny it, claiming they are only logical arguements.

Your rejection of the <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>

---

>(+n)+(-n) concept is based (in my opinion) entirely because it denies the existance of your God.

I don't accept any of your conclusions as having any possibility of being reality, especially God. Period. Your unwillingness to yield or move on after a topic has been thourghly thrashed is because you are pursueing this from a religious belief desguised as science. You are out to prove God and it cannot be done.

HAS ANYONE OTHER THAN PATRICK EVER THOUGHT I REVERSED MY VIEW OF [NULL]?

Perhaps Patrick, if others will respond to this last question, and it is my last question on these issues, and they all say what I expect they should say which is I haven't once switched then will you drop this routine?