How can something come from nothing?

what ever this question (is) you Metaphysical person.
(like) (meta)phore

Try answering the question, please.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/yoga_and_meditation.htm#.U_Z297tx2PJ

haha lol

Sorry, I am not inclined to visit outside links. If you are as capable a debater as you have made yourself out to be, you should be able to present your arguments succinctly.

     Yes, put in that way the question actually makes no sense, but when implicitly hidden in the assumptions a lot of brand new theories and 'scientific' careers could be built on it. IMV it should be put together with the millennium math problems.
     Call it metaphysics, call it ontology, call it as you like, but the data acquisition about the nature of being, becoming, existence and reality, and the explanation of the fundamental nature of what is, has been, or will become, the world that encompasses us, IMV should be called situation awareness - the more (self-)aware someone is, the less vulnerable he will be to lies, implicitly hidden contradictions in the self, pseudo-scientific theories and misrepresentations of any kind.

i don't debate.

The intrinsic verbiage you're using is limiting your perspective to the concept that something and nothing are separate and not connected. You cannot have something without nothing; you cannot have nothing without something. The cross-over point is when you are able to observe that something is just an expression of nothing.

The existence is not it's label, it is being. That is to say that there is a difference between saying the word "real" and the all-at-once effect of capture a gong gives you. They are fundamentally different. One is real, the other is a label in a language designed to communicate the concept of real.

You used the word "happened" that's a curious word that we use in generality; the use often infers that something can not happen. The universe is, in a sense, nothing but "happening". It so happens that we are existing (verb), we are not the noun our language structure appends to us. Because we view nouns as stationary things. Perhaps that the stationary thing is moving, such as to say that a ball is bouncing. But a ball is happening just as much as the bouncing is happening. And so in this fundamental way, the universe is happening. And as such that happening paves the way for more happening, just as the happening of the ball exists to allow the happening of the ball bouncing.

So too are you happening, and so too is all of the cosmos happening in the infinite designs or flavors or shades or colors that it happens to be expressed in. A planet happens in the same way a cup of tea happens. A galaxy happens in the way the ocean happens. It is all moving, it is all the same constitutional building blocks. You are part of this. So am I. So is everything between you and I, and larger and smaller than you and I.

This ideology is a challenge, surely. But in practical terms, how did the whole of the universe come into being when, as we presume, there was nothing before it? That is a most challenging question indeed. How did something come into being when we presume that all of the things that are something must inherently be created. I would say that the bigger question here is .. "How do we truly know what originally was at the dawn of all of existence?", which alludes to a preamble, "How do we know that there ever was a dawn of existence at all?"

We perceive time in the most peculiar way, don't we? We presume that because our egos flicker into and out of recognized existence - or that is to say - that things are, and then they are not, that so too must be the nature of all of existence; that all of existence was not and then it, in the same way a flower grows and dies, so too must the universe have been born.

My challenge with this is that we do not see any evidence, truly, of anything ever coming into existence where never were there existence of such a thing as before. We see new any interesting expressions of a thing, but never wholly new. Even as something is born, it is the energy and molecular combination and transformation of one thing into another temporarily.

If we perceive this, in this manner, then time starts to seem a bit silly doesn't it? If we take play dough and turn it into something, then something else, then something else, do we measure the time it was all of those things and call them different? Or do we still call it play dough?

But you think,right?
Tell us what you think.

The problem with this forum is that a definition was not provided. Is the subject about the big bang or is it about human creation - both physical and mental. Two entirely different subjects.

This is very true. How fantastic our minds are that we are able to extract such wild ideas from the symbols of our language and even the simplest of change results in such a massive variation in both interpretation and results.

Inherently, I think both the OP and the many who have spoken here are able to fathom all possibilities of what the word 'something' and the word 'nothing' equate to. The real question I think is that if we are capable of imagining something, does that make it exist by some definition?

A philosophers question indeed.
Although, you would need to debunk base level thermodynamics in order to establish an infinite universe theory.

By the very fact that we have both fictional and factual communication in our lives makes our experiences that much richer; it lets us see other people's thinking and ideas about their reality.

There's been several fictional movies where I reacted with real emotion of sadness or happiness, because of the way I personally reacted to someone else's creation of words and visual offerings. It's also allowed many of us to see places, things, and history in a way that provided us with insights into subjects that would not have been available.

Look what the internet has done for our generation. Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo, and other social media sites have opened up the world to communication with many around this world.

     The definition is that everybody can create Something from Nothing always, as soon as, when and as this suits you and your entourage ... and is convenient to you personal interests and aspirations ... and provides perspectives to cloudless scientific career and promotions. Money and power and their misuse are the basics of understanding any science.

You wrote,

You're just one ignorant SOB. You don't even know the definition of "science."

It's a pretty broad term. There's science to everything. My definition is the application of how and what.

What the **** are you talking about?

      ... and what is your definition of science ... if it is not some secret?

Do you have a dictionary? Probably not.

      ... or probably yes, but it doesn't matter what I have. What matters here is what you have, for you are presenting yourself as a scientist of seventh star magnitude ... empowered to talk on behalf of all the science.
      The definition that I have here says: systematic, methodological and formulated knowledge; branch of knowledge, especially one that can be conducted on scientific principles.
     I was wondering here whether the inapplicability of the laws of physics to a physical theory is systematic or methodological. Or perhaps its assumptions were formulated.

I never claimed to be a scientist. However, I do know that your knowledge about science is non-existent. You don't even understand the meaning of "facts" or "evidence." It makes me wonder how people like you survive in this world.