Atheists have no defense on this one... lets storm the Gates of Hell...!!! Who's with me...?
From the article:
'''The Elliott Argument''' : is a fairly new apologetic argument that is sweeping the internet and taking the creationism vs. atheism debating scene by storm ...The argument presupposes that [[atheists]] in fact only have two options for the existence of the [[universe]], and that it is logically impossible to present a third option.Both of these supposed ''options'' are claimed by the author to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. They are presented throughout the [[formal argument]] as well defined acronyms. The first one being ''STE'' which stands for [[Space Time Eternal]], and the second being ''SCPNCEU'', which represents the thought that ''Something can come from pure [[nothingness]] and then create entire universe(s).'' According to '''The Elliott Argument''', ''STE'' is irrational and illogical for a number of reasons. The first based upon the ''alleged'' impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] of past events.The claim is then made by the author, that there is absolutely no evidence that ''space-time" is in fact eternal in the past. The second acronym, ''SCPNCEU'', is also claimed to be irrational and illogical by the author for many reasons. The most common claim made here is that the acronym (SCPNCEU) in fact defies mathematical absolutes, the law of [[cause and effect]], known philosophical truths, and is in itself an inherently flawed concept.The author also makes the claim that there is in fact no known [[evidence]] proving that something can come from pure[[nothingness]] and THEN that somethingcreate/or be responsible for creating, entire universe(s). The author also claims that there is no evidence pure nothingness can ever be achieved.
Strictly speaking, I can't comment on your science because your post was metaphysics rather than science. Which is fine, but it is different.
Phil, you may enjoy listening to Lawerence Krause, a professor at U of Arizona, and his lecture "A Universe from Nothing"
One thing that should be noted: a vacuum containing energy, waves, and tiny bits of matter, isn't nothing, because energy and matter aren't nothing. So it won't really help with the problem of getting something from nothing.
Pure nothing indeed does not exist. Nothing means things not existing. If they exist (and things do), you don't have nothing.
"and I apologize for any incorrect science/theory". Don't worry about it Phil, you did fine and Mr. Elliot (the OP who is, I'm thinking, the author of the article hence the name "The Elliot Argument") will simply say that all your science and theory is incorrect without showing evidence to the contrary or offering any other explanation than "I told you it was".
I got as far as your "SCPNCEU" and had to stop. That was the MOST idiotic thing I've EVER read, as a matter of fact I think I am somewhat dumber now for having read it. NO athiest, that I know of, or should I say, NO INTELLGENT athiest would say that SOMETHING CAME FROM PURE NOTHING. For your education, edification, and general knowledge there was, according to scientific theory anyway, a BIG BANG. Now, you may ask, what banged? What banged was a point of infinitely small infinitely dense 'ball', if you will, of energy. That is most definitely NOT NOTHING. So your argument is specious and, I think, deliberately inflamatory designed to get a rise out of others.
And further, no scientist (or atheist) would say it was nothing before that. They all are (or should be) very quick to say "we don't yet know what if anything, was before that, or even what the conditions of the big bang were - we only have evidence of what went on in the microseconds after it, and beyond."
Anyone who claims they know otherwise, is speculating (or regurgitating what someone else speculated).
Nothing could, metaphysically, come from nothing. Science doesn't discuss nothing coming from nothing (try to imagine an experiment to confirm it!), and if a scientist talks about nothing coming from nothing (as at least one has; we've discussed him on another thread), he is not being a scientist at that moment but a metaphysician.