How can something come from nothing?

It's great that you admit it.

We have to, go on things KNOWN!

Maria: Perhaps I had a wicked childhood
Perhaps I had a miserable youth
But somewhere in my wicked, miserable past
There must have been a moment of truth
For here you are, standing there, loving me
Whether or not you should
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good
Nothing comes from nothing
Nothing ever could
So, somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good
Captain: So here you are, standing there, loving me
Whether or not, you should
Maria: So somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good
Both: Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could
Maria: So, somewhere in my youth...
Captain: ...or childhood
Maria: I must have done something...
Both: Something...good...

There is a principle in scientific thinking (Ockham’s razor) that was developed by a thirteenth century clergyman and scientist named Ockham. The principal, in laymen’ terms says, "don’t assert what you can’t prove. " Today’s scientists, however (who apparently watched way too much Barney with their kids), have developed a different take on the ‘razor”, (a strategy to cut through data to arrive at truth). Their version? “Use your imagination….”.

The official renderings of Ockham’s razor goes like this: when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. In other words, keep it simple, stupid.

The problem is that today’s scientists don’t. Even toddlers intuitively get that things have causes. If there is suddenly a ball in the room, someone had to bring it in. Intuitively they know this at a very young age.

And now, at the very least in theoretical physics, a lot of the science is actually not science but math. And translating the math into science that involves the universe and where it came from ends up inducing astrophysicists to use their imaginations. A lot. And they use them double-time in order to avoid having to imagine a righteous creator God.

In their own words.… “Based on the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, … a quantum theory of gravity spacetime would consist of many small, ever-changing, regions in which space and time are not definite, but fluctuate in a foam-like manner.”

Areas otherwise known as “quantum foam”. Which was the brainchild of a guy named Alexander Vilenkin.

Alexander came up with the theory of quantum foam and hypothesized that this foam– made up of “virtual particles” (called that because, theoretically, they don’t stick around long enough to be real) could be the basis for a theory that would succeed in creating the universe without actually needing a creator. A Universe that had no prerequisites.

A universe made out of nothing.

Because for Velenkin and many of his colleagues, that was the only acceptable kind of universe to propose. A Universe that arose spontaneously out of absolutely nothing.

The theory, a little refined since then, is now called quantum tunneling.

And it goes like this: It has been previously demonstrated that particles may also have wave probability functions, and that these wave probability functions may occasionally extend over the front of a physical barrier in a way that exceeds its normal boundaries.

We can sort of visualize that, right?

And according to Alex, maybe…just maybe something similar happened that led to the origin of the universe. Maybe it was a probability wave function of quantum foam that existed at the beginning and the wave function exceeded its boundaries and..then, and then, well…

Shazaam! The explosion of the universe began.

All by itself.

Creating just the kind of universe Alex wanted. One without need of pre-existing conditions or starting materials. One made out of nothing!

One without need of a Creator.

Which I guess if you’re a gullible grad student you might buy into, although much of it doesn’t really make sense and requires a lot of using your magination.

And all the smoke and mirrors can’t quite hide the main problem, the universe Velenkin proposes doesn’t really arise from nothing.

Far from it.

Velenkin’s theory requires the laws of physics. It requires the energy fields, it requires the gravitational fields, and it requires the quantum foam.

It also requires a bubble within the quantum foam to pop to get things going.

So like, once your body and my body touch each other, they're wrapped around each other and can't separate, even if I go over there (and sleep with that gal).
Oh Jimmy! You're sooooo romantic. And so smart!
Uhhhh yeah, of course I am. Remember, it's called quantum entanglement. I'll be thinking of you, honest (while I go sleep with her without your knowledge).

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.

Now we know that modern day science believes we are just consciousness…

I don't mind Descartes.

However, it doesn't follow that just because you are existing, you will be intelligent enough to think. Worms and jellyfish don't build rocket ships.

Nor can anybody by thinking can bring themselves into being.

I think it would be useful for you to take a full course (even a Wikipedia one) on the various theories of mind-body problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Make up your own mind about this. Meanwhile, I continue to state even wereall of existence an illusion, there would necessarily need to be an illusionist (God) and a subject (me). There might also be other subjects (you, Frank, izzy, Leadfoot), but because I cannot prove you are not part of the illusion, I am only sure of two people. Now it is also possible that I am part of the illusion, and we're really telling izzt or Leadfoot's story, but the POV seems weird for that.

In other words, if thought is all that matters, you can readily prove the existence of yourself and God, but proving another person exists is actually more difficult by far.

We don't know what you just stated by the way about human experience just being consciousness or whatever. This is what science calls "we now know." In a biology book I read as a young adult, they taught us about spontaneous generation and how they used to believe in spontaneous generation and that life was caused by a life force that brought flies and bacteria into being from nothing. "We now know that no life force exists." ( They showed me Pasteur's models)

That's slight of hand. We've disproven bad science, so we declare we've also disproven its side theories that are not actually to do with science. Wait, no, you haven't! You haven't proven consciousness is all there is (dreams are not part of consciousness, btw). You haven't proven there is no soul or there is no God, despite scientistic types saying they have, you haven't proven there is no life force (only that spontaneous generation doesn't work).

It is necessary to call anything that has always been or always will return a god (an immortal being with either infinite reincarnations with full memory, or eternal life with immortality; if you can kill something but it always comes back with no loophole or secret weakness, or you can't kill something, you are referring to a god). It is necessary to call anything that is the cause of everything God (that is, what we mean by God is an uncausable cause, a being that cannot be undone because it is something outside our realm of reasoning, not merely immortal but something immortals themselves worship).

The universe may or may not be eternal (I do not demand people believe in Big Bang or the Creation), but it is decidedly not God.

You science types could call it that, and you'd be right in that it is your absolute concern. But such a "God" would fall flat on a key point. It is possible to destroy the universe, using a massive nuclear fission event, breaking all atoms into subparticles and nanoparticles and even smaller ones. Maybe not permanently, but if the universe is "God", it is possible to wound "God."

But even if nobody believes in God, he is still God. Even if all followers are dead, and all Bibles burned, and generations of people do not know God. It is not even possible to wound God unless he wishes it.