Or I suppose to avoid the double entendre, maybe I should say "Something is less interesting than Nothing."

I've obviously heard the arguments thousands of times before I came across your show, where someone asks in a befuddled way about how something came from nothing. Then in watching your shows, I notice you get lots of theists who call in and do it to you also. While you all as hosts do consistently counter that it doesn't make sense to posit a god; I don't know if you ever countered for the reason that I find the argument unfulfilling. Not only do I think there is no reason to believe a god created anything; I also think there is no reason to believe that there was ever nothing before something.

I can't demonstrate a genuine nothing in the real world, even if I took away as many particles as I could from an area, it wouldn't be a perfect absence of somethings; there would always be fields and virtual particle pairs leftover, and those are definitely something. The big bang theory doesn't actually say that energy was created during that event; all it says is that the observable universe was hotter and denser in the past compared to now. In a crude analogy, I can measure the expansion of a balloon over a certain time span and make a theory about how fast it was expanding in the past and how long ago it started doing it; but that doesn't lead me to claim that in the past there was nothing and then there was a balloon.

I'd be interested the next time you get a caller asking you how something came from nothing; hearing you ask them where the nothingness starts. And what reasons they have for claiming that knowledge.

This topic, is so me, as I spent a few years putting an answer to that question in a book, I wrote. "The Answer to 42" is a funny take on the question, but I did use real science to answer the question, why, and how, the universe can, and did start from nothing at all. It takes some time to understand, as real science can be hard to (understand) at times, however, with a little "brain power" anyone can understand by reading my book. No cheats, just real science. Hit me up on twitter, if you want @RonaldvonMitch.

I don't twit, and I disperse my hard earned cash with extreme reluctance.

So how about you give the best reason on your list to justify that there was ever any evidence of nothing before something.

Ronald von Mitchel: "[...] but I did use real science to answer the question, why, and how, the universe can, and did start from nothing at all."

It is logical that you are EITHER wrong OR misuse the term "nothing". The fact that you say "did use real science" insinuates that the former is true. Here's my reason:

If you use science, you are basing your argument on natural laws and somesuch. On forces. Gravity, maybe. But all these are "something". It is plain simply impossible to get from nothing to something, because any mechanism/law/force/... that could do that would have to exist already, and so, the nothingness would not be pure, it would not really be *nothing*.

Please answer my (or Nate's) inquiry for a bit more detail about what you wrote in the book.