How can something come from nothing?

ok that's obviously what you meant to say. almost as funny as trying to get a scientifically valid response other than High Demonology, that high demonology was inadequate is basically seriously has me rolling in fits.

What's wrong with High Demonology? Other than your education?

Very hilarious, when I think of it in terms of your sorry author trying to address his fans over a series of works I wrote that got copied quickly, as an atheist.

This is what you get. Get money for it. Very funny. To your author: Quick change the subject

Basically too funny. Keep digging for scientific responses.

Keep checking back.

The author is obviously an "atheist" and "not a nutjob" not by stand of education but by stand of belief. So, good luck with that.

Stop interrogating me, for a different response basically. Stop interrogating me, period. That's all.

So an atheist is taking credit for my work? That's all you're going to get as a response to disparaging, unearned, remarks, from you, from head quarters.

I thought demonology went out with the discovery of mental illness.

Can you stop doing that? The first time though? The first time it gets brought up as a refrain, or something you want to do, in other words, just because you want to, is when you should stop doing it. The first time though. You keep doing it...is bizarre. Take it to your home. I'm not your wife, I'm not your nutjob wife.

It's not mental illness, it's education. Take it to your wife. We're not all your wife; we're not all a nut job.

I thought you're a moron actually. LOL

keep looking.

You're right it's all about education...you need education on scientific process You don't understand it or know how to support it.

this interrogation is over. Please return to the topic of Ex Nihilo, and what anybody might say about it. I have given a reasoned response.

Ex nihil must be middle English. It might be Charles Fort. Please continue. I have my work copy righted by the way.

Thank goodness!! Now we can go back to a more interesting discussion. When it comes to reasoning and scientific principles, middle English won't help mate. Your argument will still be laughable and outdated ....you can also relax at plagiarism....Nobody's interested...

"When it comes to reasoning and scientific principles, middle English won't help mate. "

you mean school? lol

you're obviously not "able2know" like me.

This board is for experts to answer. Not for people to fight.

You don't know the difference!

Actually I do. Stop calling me a nutjob. "You don't know the difference" is calling me a nut job. And clearly I translate Greek and Latin. You're a fan. Fans need to buy books not stalk.

My mental health is not in question. You're an obsessed fan and obviously you took over the board ,and you're following me too. Obviously I need a panic room.

You don't know the difference actually, now stop using the board for your own purposes; your own stupid purposes; which is to annoy your obsession.

Wouldn't it be nice if fans could just follow authors around and read everything they write? I mean what world do you come from?

Get off the board. I'm answering questions here. You're a dirty police officer; if so your education is basically 6th grade. I'm not interested. Go away.

Why authors can't go on message boards; I suppose so.

go away dude...I don't have a condition. You do, though, called nut job.

Creatio ex nihilo, and ex nihilo, nihilo fit, creation from nothing and from nothing comes nothing.

In reference to the theory of the universal nilpotent rewrite system by Peter Rowlands, Bernard Diaz, Vanessa Hill and others.

According to this theory mathematics can accurately and exhaustively describe the universe (duh......) That's a brilliant idea, because you can then refer to all the mathematics used in science as supporting evidence for the theory, and mathematics is used everywhere in science.

What this means then is that the fundamental unit of existence is not a particle, or energy, but actually symbols. So to say the zero accurately and exhaustively describes a thing in the universe, the 1 also accurately and exhaustively describes a thing in the universe, and things like planets consist of these 1's 0's and other numbers and mathematical operators.

The fundamental meaning of science is then to copy, to make a model of things. In the one hand you have the piece of paper with the 0 on it, in your other hand you have the thing which is 0. And that is what science amounts to.

To explain mathematics is then also to explain the universe. In standard mathematics the 1 is arrived at by counting. Counting is the most fundamental mathematical function in most mathematical theory. But these scientists suggested another way to arrive at the 1, which way is to rewrite the 0 into a 1.

Rewriting is the principle used in computing much, for example information in RAM memory is rewritten to the harddisk. In RAM memory the information is made from uh.. electronvoltage or something, and on the harddisk the information is electro-magnetism. So you see the same information has a different form, it is rewritten.

So to rewrite the 0 as a 1, it means likewise that it is the same information in a different form.

That means the fundamental relationship between the 0 and the 1 is boolean, they are interchangeable. And ofcourse this boolean relationship would have a physical manifestation in the universe, that if you come across an object consisting of 0's and 1's, they would act in this boolean way.

So that is how you get something from nothing, how you get 1 from 0.

If you want to do away with the 0 also, if the intention is to do away with all artefacts, and then explain the artefacts being created, then according to creationist philosophy you are still left with the spiritual domain.

What acts in a free way can only be identified in a free way. The spirit chooses, therefore it acts in a free way, therefore it is a matter of opinion if it exists or not, because forming an opinion requires freedom.

The material objects can be measured. The evidence of it *forces* to the conclusion that it exists. Which means there is only ever 1 correct answer for matters of fact, which correct answer is an accurate and exhaustive model of something.Evidence cannot apply to what chooses, because evidence works by force, while what chooses acts in a free way.

Facts do not apply, but opinion does apply to the issue of what it is that chooses, because for an opinion there must be at least 2 correct answers available, either of which can be chosen. The painting is either beautiful, or ugly, the conclusion is obtained by expression of emotion with free will, thus by a way of choosing the answer.

So you can have nothing existing, not even 0, but still God does exist, if that is your opinion. You can also have no 0 existing, and no god existing, but instead spiritiual emptiness. The opinion that God exists, requires an alternative, because opinions can only be arrived at in freedom.

So you can say God created the universe, or you can say the universe was created out of emptiness, both are logically valid answers. Which says nothing about if or not they are morally acceptable answers.

Ah, another Frank in our midst. It's always me, me, me...and I'm never wrong! LOL

At least I do not spend half my posts calling other people morons or idiots like you, ci.

As for "never being wrong"...since mostly I am acknowledging I do not know the things I do not know...yeah...I am not wrong.

You ought to give "acknowledging what you do not know" a try every once in a while. It won't hurt as much as you apparently think it will.

You,

I have over 90,000 posts on a2k; anyone can challenge what I say. When I'm wrong, I apologize and/or thank the person who points out my errors.

At least I admit I'm wrong when somebody points it out to me! It's rarely a matter of "acknowledging what I do not know." I don't bull shyt about what I don't know - which is a lot!

You took a shot at me for no reason whatever...to make a dubious point about someone else. The "me, me, me" does not apply in my case. And I am the first to acknowledge when I am wrong.

I honestly have not seen you post many "I am wrong" posts...but I have posted many.

What is your "work" mate?
If it's a written manuscript in a cupboard how can they get at it?

You,

Show me about your many posts on "I am wrong?" I can only admit to being wrong when I'm wrong.

I'm glad you gave me your word on not suffering from a condition....that must've been the clarification I was looking for.

What are you asking for here?

Earlier you wrote:



You seem to be suggesting that you have done it. You are suggesting people have pointed out errors or mistakes or something inappropriate to you...and you have acknowledged the error and apologized to (or thanked) the person who points it out.

You also seem to be suggesting that I do not do that.

Is this the situation? Am I reading you correctly?

What are you asking for here?

I'm gonna get off your merry-go-round. It's useless!