The Pitfalls of Logic

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus, if one starts with nothing ... out comes the universe ... logically ... as a unique expression of logic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It should read more like this

Thus, if one starts with nothing ... out comes the universe ... illogically ... as a unique geometrical expression of nothing. In this case (nothing) is identified by logical means, because on a purely illogical base (nothing) there is no other alternative.

One might say that we can only expect the illogical from the illogical - Is this not a logical expression?
One might say that we can expect the logical from the illogical - Is this not an illogical expression?

In both cases - Logic is expressed, and that utterance comes in the form of a geometric made entirely of nothing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />I don't agree with anybody here. For me ...

The Laws of Nature constitute a subset of Logic. Thus, if one starts with nothing ... out comes the universe ... logically ... as a unique expression of logic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
But if one starts with nothing, maintains nothing and ends with nothing, there is no logical violation. If all qualities in the Universe are balanced with countervalent equivalents, the size of any entity (finite) in ratio to infinity is Ø and all points in the cosmos are its center, then relative to the reality of an infinite Universe, qualitatively, quantitatively and dimensionally (relative position and configuration) the null set is maintained. Only in relativistic terms do size and position make any difference. Relativity is only a derivitive of reality.