RourkeSun, Jan 6, 2008 Your talk of 'no-thing' reminds me of Victor Stenger's writings about the universe as a closed system:
The first law [of thermodynamics] allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."...
...In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation....
...Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter... As Noble laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable." - link
Infinite and Nothing are pretty much interchangable in the physical sense: one spontaneously becomes the other. Extending the metaphor that infinity represents (and in the post above I have also used 'God' in the metaphorical sense) is akin to extending the boundaries of the infinite itself.
Your talk of 'no-thing' reminds me of Victor Stenger's writings about the universe as a closed system:
Infinite and Nothing are pretty much interchangable in the physical sense: one spontaneously becomes the other. Extending the metaphor that infinity represents (and in the post above I have also used 'God' in the metaphorical sense) is akin to extending the boundaries of the infinite itself.