EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i><br />In the Big Bang, "creation" means "brought into existence <i>ex nihilo</i>".

Moreover, not just matter but also space and time themselves are created <i>ex nihilo</i>. In BB, galaxies do not move through space at cosmological speeds. Instead, more new space is being continually created <i>ex nihilo</i> between all galaxies, making them farther apart. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was afraid that might be your meaning.
I will agree a condition can be brought into 'existence'.
Is it your contention that a being or entity - in fact, all beings/entities - were brought into 'existence'?

Was this accomplished by a feat of conjure (a process not subject to the laws of nature), a divine act (in which case how was the divinity 'created'?), or did something pre-exist existence? Is existence a condition? Is there a 'state' of non-existence?

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b><u></u>This matter/anti-matter concept is rather strange. For example, if matter meets anti-matter then no energy should be unleashed, i.e., their fusion should yield nothing.
</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Where have you been?

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />This matter/anti-matter concept is rather strange. For example, if matter meets anti-matter then no energy should be unleashed, i.e., their fusion should yield nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you serious or pulling our legs? In fact, when matter meets antimatter, the result is that both are converted to massive amounts of energy governed by E = m c^2.

That is fortunate, because if anything ever became nothing, we would have to accept that miracles do occur and that our pursuit of understanding is at an end. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />I will agree a condition can be brought into 'existence'. Is it your contention that a being or entity - in fact, all beings/entities - were brought into 'existence'?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hardly. Creation <i>ex nihilo</i> is inconceivable. All new forms arise from previous forms, whether our eyes or instruments can detect them or not.

I don't merely disagree with the Big Bang (having authored "the top 30 problems with the Big Bang"). I think it is totally wrong, even from its first premise that the universe is expanding. But that's another story.

Why did you allow that coming into existence from nothing might be possible?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Was this accomplished by a feat of conjure (a process not subject to the laws of nature), a divine act (in which case how was the divinity 'created'?), or did something pre-exist existence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Miracles are not allowed in physics. Nor have most of us yet seen the need to invoke them. (One exception might be the Copenhagen school of QM, which IMO is on footing as sound as the Big Bang.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is existence a condition?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is there a 'state' of non-existence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Non-existence, much like infinity and apples, can exist as a concept. But no material, tangible entity can ever achieve non-existence. Although apples can perish, none of their atoms perish in the process, but are instead recycled into some other form or "concept".

You might want to look over our debates about creation here from a few months back. It might save much repetition. -|Tom|-

Logic requires definition and infinity is undefined, so it does not play well in a logical argument, BUT the concept of BOTH real and logical nothing is presented in the theory -
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: definition of infinity-forever.
_____________________________________________________________________
Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/999,999,999,999,999. If the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator is, the ratio approaches Zero as the denominator ‘approaches' infinity. Relative to the Universe any finite value (size, distance, etc) compared to infinity yields a quotient of Zero.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: however if i reverse your above example,the numerator is infinite and the denominator is finite we go to infinitely large,away from Zero!!
_____________________________________________________________________
If for every QUALitative value within each entity there is a reciprocal, then within the abstract of infinity each entity has no quality, size or position. They are - relative to infinity - 'Real' nothing.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: the only problem i have with this above statement is this,you need a "real" entity for a "real" nothing to exist. however this reversed,a "real" nothing cannot produce a "real" entity. if this were a true logical statement it should be true when reversed,it is not, therefore is not a valid statement.
_____________________________________________________________________

. . . creation ex nihilo with existence ex nihilo, but the essense is the same. The claim is that not only is the universe balanced, but that this balance point, this nothing, is more than just a summation or accounting, it is the source of existence.[/quote]
Actually the claim is that reciprocal balance is the 'source' or basis of logic and logic is engendered by the nature of existence . . . which is natural balance.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: as i have stated above not a true logical statement,it is not reversible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />I will agree a condition can be brought into 'existence'. Is it your contention that a being or entity - in fact, all beings/entities - were brought into 'existence'?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hardly. Creation <i>ex nihilo</i> is inconceivable. All new forms arise from previous forms, whether our eyes or instruments can detect them or not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thank goodness . . . I was getting a little worried

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I don't merely disagree with the Big Bang (having authored "the top 30 problems with the Big Bang"). I think it is totally wrong, even from its first premise that the universe is expanding. But that's another story.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yeah - and wait until they find out that the cosmological constant is actually a variable[]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Why did you allow that coming into existence from nothing might be possible?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't. The fact that all entities are comprised of countervalent qualities doesn't mean 'nothing' ever existed. Existence is explained by a principle, not a process.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is existence a condition?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Oooops . . . I'm getting worried again. You are equating a state of being (a condition) with being itself - or worse yet, you are putting the cart before the horse saying being is derived from a state of being. Doesn't jibe...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

You might want to look over our debates about creation here from a few months back. It might save much repetition. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
10-4. I'm a little (k)new here. TY for the hedzup.