Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?

If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Crickets....

Yes, Pletho you are correct. The universe is a computer simulation which was created by God, a physical being in the real universe.

Perhaps our universe was purchased at a store similar to Best Buy, who knows?

No, I would not agree. You have no basis for this belief. In fact, the ideas of particles and antiparticles - which pop out of nothing at random - pretty strongly contradicts your assertion.

Let's say I grant you your assertion above. Even that doesn't get you to where you want to go. You now have to assume the linearity of time, which is a naive and wrong assumption - we know for a fact that time only exists as it does under current conditions - it's a property of space and the universe and not separate from it - and we know it breaks down under other conditions.

If you want to answer these questions, pick up some reading material on what physics teaches us. It contains more theology than the bible, and in fact always has - most of your theological beliefs come from physics, and not religion. Physics has reformed theology more than theology has reformed theology. Which is why you're making posts on the Internet about the cause of the universe rather than burning little old ladies who deal in herbal cures.

Particles pop out from seemingly nowhere. They're on the cusp and I hope they hit it.

Of course something does come from nothing for that "nothingness" which the modern physicist alludes to is that very spiritual world which is nothingness or in other words a "non particularity" if I could say the "non ponderable".

The "G" appreciation is another story.

Another region in which "something comes from nothing" is the realm of comets. the comet seemingly disappears only to return in some type of regularity; it does disappear, according to our senses, but is still existent but non cognizable with our senses of sight and sound, et. al.

The science is the future of Man but first there has to be some appreciation of the non material in which the material can be comprehended as the "precipitation" of or "expression of" the spirit , so to speak. Words have to be used here which come from the earthly, more as pointers but this can all be comprehended if approached without prejudice. Think ice cubes forming out of water; he who only perceivesice cubes or mountains will not be able to see the water.

I'm glad the modern physicist wonders at the apparent creation of these particles but using the earthly or ponderable as the source of these particles takes the wonder out of it and is headed in the wrong direction.

If there is one thing we have ample evidence for when it comes to the nature of the universe, it is that intuition is a fairly bad guide to its nature. It's not without value of course, but that makes it even worse - because it makes even harder to tell when it leads on the right track and when it leads us astray.

We now know that the earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth and that the universe is unlikely to have existed forever. At various times and places in history, these ideas have all been counter-intuitive.

What we see in modern day physics is that causation may not be all that it was cranked up to be. A counter-intuitive proposal to be sure, but as we see from the examples above, this alone is not a solid indicator of something being wrong.

And we will eventually change to grasp new concepts and ideas. For modern educated human beings, the idea of a round earth is perfectly intuitive. Nay-sayers will exist of course, but they'll dwindle in numbers.

Believing that "nothing" is incapable of producing "something" does have basis. This basis however is rooted entirely on logic and not science. You have refuted this logical idea based on a claim that particles and antiparticles have been witnessed to pop out of "nothing" at random. My counter argument would be to question your definition of "nothing". Any scientific experiment we can perform will be done within our space-time continuum. Therefore, I would claim it impossible for us to witness "something" coming from "nothing", as it would require us to be outside the space-time continuum.

I don't understand your argument here. Why does time need to be linear in order for the OP's assertion to be valid?

Fair enough, but intuition and logic are two different things. 2+2=4 is a logical certainty. It is both intuitive and logical that "something" cannot come from "nothing". It is intuitive that the earth is flat, because we observe it as flat while on it, but it is not logical in the same sense that 2+2=4 is logical. Observing the earth as flat does not prove it to be so, whereas 2+2=4 is a mathematical proof. "Something" coming from "nothing" is the mathematical equivalent of X=0 where X<>0. Is that logical?

Can you create nothing from something?

No - that's impossible - once something exist - it will always exist in some way shape or form

BUT

Nothing cannot produce something - that's a mathmatical fact - BUT when dealing with God and the things of God which believe it or not it is possible to bring something into existence from nothing because your dealing with a realm that is higher and hat supersedes the physical realm.

Man cannot create anything man forms things from already existing elements in the universe or the physical realm -

God is the ONLY one that can truly create something -

The word create when understood and defined from a biblical usage means to bring into existence something that did not exist before it was created.

God in the Bible only created a few things then once those things were created He formed and made other things from the original elements of creation -

He should came up with some type of system that evolved what he wanted so he wouldn't need all that after the fact forming.

What about a fire cracker? You create it and then you light it up and BAM, its gone forever, it was something and now it is nothing.

Even in science that's not possible. Even nothing is still something according to science. I don't see how you can make something from nothing at all? What gives?

If you have no apples, how can you suddenly have 1 apple?

If you have nothing, how can you suddenly have something?

Zero doesn't mean "no nothing", just like 1 doesn't mean "one something". Numbers are defined by what they do, not what they point to.

If we use them in an applied manner and then our values might also point to something, but that doesn't apply to the numbers themselves. Or with simpler words; Pure mathematics doesn't prove anything except math. If you want maths to apply to the observable, then you need to add a layer of interpretation.

So I agree that my mathematical analogy is not a proof that something cannot come from nothing. My point was, that intuition and logic are not the same thing, and the OP is putting forth a logical argument, not an argument of intuition.

No such thing as 'nothing'.

Never was.
Never will be.
Never could be.

The issue of contention is in your use of the word 'produce'.

There was never necessity for some-thing to be 'produced'. Every-thing always was and always will be.

In a mathematical infinity, was it ever necessary for number 3245156 to be produced? No.
It always was and always will be.

Was it necessary that the mathematical infinity be produced? No.
It always was and always will be.

It would be more meaningful if you rephrased your question to instead ask:
Whether there can be an object without a subject?

The prevailing scientific theory is that the universe began to exist and prior to that beginning, the universe did not exist. Do you disagree with this theory and if so what is your theory in light of the evidence?

What part of Big Bang cosmology (or other theory) describes the universe prior to 'Planck era'?

The theory applies to the observable universe only. That things did not exist prior to the big bang, or outside the observable universe are dubious claims that not even cosmologists would be keen to defend.

This is a false statement.

You're confusing what the theory/evidence actually says with how it's described for lay people in layperson books and media articles.

The big bang makes no claims about the universe coming into existence. Indeed, in a singularity, time ceases to exist.

Have a read of this for example; Time stops in black holes.

Time is a property and dimension of the universe. It has no meaning outside that, because relativity rather shockingly has taught us that time is not absolute, but completely relative, just like speed is.

I realize that's highly unintuitive and impossible to get your head around, but if you're going to make first cause arguments, you need to come to understand it in some way, or you're not even capable of participating in the debate.

Lawrence Krauss would argue that our universe did have a beginning. If it had a beginning then that would imply that at one point there was no universe.

Who cares what Krauss thinks? Einstein argued against quantum. A bunch of highly learned professors argued against relativity in the early years. Professors are just your average human with a little of a specialization. They make all the same moronic mistakes that regular humans do. It's no surprise that a large number of physicists won't be able to wrap their around something that it's impossible to wrap the human head around.

Time is a property of a non-singular expanded universe. Our notions of causation require time. It all breaks down at the big bang, so the juvenile concepts of before and after are meaningless applied to that period.

The nature of reality is bizarre and highly counter-intuitive. Much of what we already know is far beyond our minds to properly grasp. Let alone what we don't know - who knows what the ultimate nature of reality is? Whatever it is, it is necessarily extremely weird and well beyond our grasp; we are creatures of sense perception bound to the set of rules we experience in the macro world, and unable to more than vaguely glimpse anything else. What we know about the world already cannot be grasped except vaguely by the most intelligent. So claims about the ultimate nature of reality, and further, extrapolations from that like the OP is trying to make that rely on common experience and common notions of time and causation, are butt-stupid and pointless.

Your struggles with epistemology are outside of the scope of this thread.

"We can't intuitively grasp the nature of reality" is a fact. It's been a fact since relativity was first proven.

"By the known and accepted laws of physics, time breaks down in singularities" is a fact

"Time is a property/dimension of the universe; it is relative; we know nothing about its existence outside of the properties of the universe" is a fact.

Put them all together and OP's argument doesn't even rise to the level of a coherent thought (given what we now know - it was a perfectly reasonable question in 1200 AD for example). It's pure nonsense in 2017.

Observations about our world that was once speculative and only understood by experts are seen as second-nature and very intuitive to many, many people.

Sure, there are intricacies in modern physics that can be tough to grasp, just like there are implications of Newtonian laws that can still be flummoxing to anyone but experts, but its core basic principles are easy to grasp and now largely a part of people's basic understanding of the world. An average layman might not be able to do advanced orbital mechanics, but he understands basic principles about gravity and that the the moon orbits the earth.

And the basic principles behind these modern physics theories aren't that complex, and as time passes by these relatively modern concepts about the universe will likely also be understood at a basic intuitive level by most people.

Heck, if you go back 500 years, basic arithmetic were university level subjects, these days even small children can calculate how many months they need to save up for a new toy.

What you're describing is not 'nothing' For particles to pop in and out in a quantum fashion, they have to do so within space-time, which so far as we know began at the big bang. Lawrence Krauss has got you to buy into his chicanery I see.