How can something come from nothing?

maybe fire is immater. God created angels, first creation, from fire. God created Man from something in the soil. God appears in his immater, to speak to a prophet on the mountain. Possibly fire can produce matter then, an egg. An egg is cold. It takes heat to split it apart, making it the endo property of fire. Fire makes an egg, and then the egg a heat, cold capsule, then bursts into the lifeform within it which comes from space.

Angels obviously come from eggs, since they have wings.

Garble in, garble out. Never the twain shall meet.

that's just in matter.

Wrong; it also applies to people's opinions about many things that are without any basis in reality, fact or evidence.

I can find nothing in this thread out of which to glean something.

yet-it's not wrong though-it's definitely just matter.

meanwhile maybe someone can share a book they read that has valid points in it on this subject. I haven't seen one.

meanwhile what about this book's mythical and or metaphorical approach to the nothing or a nothing? Such as, is Fate sick?

The Never Ending Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-5QTdC7hOo

Why don't you tell us something about your reality - that includes the assumptions of the Big Bang, for example. What unshakable 'facts and evidences' do you have about:
     1. The ability of any explosion to create space with greater in number dimensions that the initial ones.
     2. The 'gravitational continuum' and gravitation to exist without any material carrier
     3. Whether the Universe has always existed and the Big Bang has actually created Nothing ... which can be used further as an evidence that there exist some 'scientific' theories that can create nothing ... out of any unverified assumptions.
     4. That time and space are 'discrete' ... and not analogue. Especially time which is imaginary construct and could be defined in any formal math model.
Can you explain us why do all the laws of physics, math logic, and a lot of other sciences collapse when they start interpreting the Big Bang 'theory'?
The Big Bang is not simply a theory - it is the maniac ambition of science to present itself as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ... without any evidences that this is plausible, let alone feasible.

1. The big bang is not my concern or topic of discussion.
2. Why are you bringing up the subject gravitation? Do you think asking the question makes you smart? LOL
3. As I said before, the big bang isn't any of my concern or interest.
4. Time is a human dimension that allows us to record our aspect of reality.
Asking me to answer all your stupid questions only proves your ignorance of what knowledge is all about. I'm not your dictionary, your teacher, or your gofer.

Go seek those answers yourself - you dumb ass!
From MPOV, you're one of the stupid ones on a2k. You think asking dumb questions proves something. The only thing it proves is your ignorance.

"your reality"..?

You argue the big bang theory, you dumb ass! I have no interest. What makes you think you can demand anything on a2k that has no relevance to the person you're asking? Because you're also a dumb ass.

I don't need your help, herald.

that's not what I meant. What I meant is that I don't need Herald's help to be quite accurate at what I meant.

Well...did you mean what you said...or did you mean what you meant to say...or did you mean what Herald was explaining you said...or did you mean what Herald was explaining that you meant to say?

Just trying to understand what you meant.

There's really no way to write it and be consistent with etiquette or atleast that I couldn't figure out how to write it. No that's not what I meant. I meant that Herald's post annoyed me greatly because for one it was between Cicero and I and it said first "your reality" to Cicero then it had arguments against the Big Bang and it then at the end praised science while presuming not to, all in case I couldn't. It might just be that I hate words "your reality", though I doubt it.

Herald

Cicero was responding to me and what I wrote about my very new hypothesis (why he wrote that, I guess so. Well that is one thing to say about new assertions.) It looks like you're trying to defend me Herald, without first agreeing with a premise, are you saying you first agree with my assertion, premise or anything I wrote? Are you trying to provide supporting arguments against stated science like the Big Bang?

Look the only reason I initially disagree with stated science is because I cannot , nor can anyone else, answer this question: "How can something come from nothing?" and because also that I defined nihilo, in language origin. There I have supposed a competing hypothesis.

As far as I can recall the Big bang theory doesn't deny quantum fluctuations.
When Big-Bang theoretical physicists state that the total energy of the Universe must be zero they are hinting at a balance of forces that would cancel each other out but not hinting at absolute nothingness, that balance is not cannot be perfect...the very idea of full blown zero spacetime is seen and presented as an idealization which you cannot confirm. a Total equilibrium for starters would have for consequence an homogeneous Universe without matter full of equally distributed energy with maximum entropy. In reality the ancient picture of the Universe we have show some very small but nonetheless significant variations in temperature which is the reason why we all are here now. Such perfect balance never existed in the first place. The same must be true in relation to spacetime. There must be a greater then zero starting matrix for space time no matter how small.

I don't believe in "hinting at." Who "hinted at" it, one thing or another? There is no such thing as hinting in science. It looks like people are questioning a particular statements meaning without stating it factually yet but I really couldn't say who because I do not read their material. Who? Einstein?

"the very idea of full blown zero spacetime is seen and presented as an idealization which you cannot confirm."

You mean it's a 'why' not a 'how'

I would advise you some further reading on the matter then. Its well know perfect equilibrium didn't exist at the start of the Bib Bang just look at the radiation background picture. What I am saying is not my own speculative hypothesis, is well know physics.

"I would advise you some further reading on the matter then."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's your post not mine! I want to know what people are responding to, who they are directing it to, and where they get their stuff from. It has to be clear. Your post isn't clear is what I meant. I'm not going to read anything about "hinting." Please provide your sources with word for word sources, sentences, provide the quotes.

You can't just say things, where I come from. What are you talking about? Which post? To which statement? From which source?

Your scientists are hinters? Where you come from? It does look like convoluted language to be quite honest now that I pick up a source-it does look like they mean to play it safe or say two things at once, or more than two things, honestly.

I'm very annoyed. I've been ignoring the zero is balance discussion until you made it directed to me. That's what it looks like, you don't want me to ignore this. Why? There was no reason to write that. So you don't want me to ignore that, ok.