"How does something come out of nothing?" Nothing does not exist. Either something exist or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist; therefore, something existed, the first existent which initiated the universe. In the pre-universe was the first existent; there was no time and, therefore, no before and no cause. How does something come out of nothing should be reworded as I did. From nothing comes nothing is true, but there never was nothing in the pre-universe, otherwise there would not be a universe.

That was too vague. Some theoritical physcists who are proponents of loop quantum gravity think that time does not exist; they want to reconcile relativity and mechanics, too.

The new increaded measured weight in electron volts of the W boson poses a threat to the Standard Model. So I await more information.

The problem of evil will surely surface.

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise.

My view is that space does not bend and surely, not break. The immaterial does not bend or stretch, etc.

Maybe very fringe. Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist.

Keep trying; your effort is appreciated.

Is it made of particles or atoms or anything physical?

Thanks for comment

Please define time

Please define time.

My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. I think that there are serious errors in special and general relativity. That paradigm is holy.
I think in general relativity that the theory of gravity is wrong. I think that space time is wrong In special relativity. I think much is wrong. But do not ask me to defend those views now.

I welcome criticisms such as yours and I appreciate the effort.

Wrong

Subjects age because change brought on by movement results in aging

Movement does not require time; movement creates time.

Older than I/older than me. In the second case, than becomes a preposition; it all depends on usage in a grammatical construct. That is the whole point: something must exist since nothing does not. Analysis should not replace reason. Perhaps you do not like a natural view of the origin of the universe.

space/time combinaation is wrong in my view; space exists but time does not. The use of time is a human convenience. What is significant is motion, the fundamental process. When anything moves, a meaurement of the motion can be made. That measurement can be made in different units, maybe hours, etc. So one serious trouble with time and space is that it is discussed without a correct definition: time is the measurement of motion and space is a real immaterial that makes mass, etc. possible.

I think clocks measure motion, not time. When anything moves, hands on clocks move. If all motion stops, what is called time stops. Immaterials are hard to prove; time is not mass. I think that there can be only one immaterial and that is space.

error

Motion one-way. We can call time the measurement of motion or time is what clocks measure. Time is used as a human convenience. A measurement--hours, minutes. Time is so flexible; it changes from country to country. So do you call a measurement an existent?

Older than I or older than me. In the second case, than becomes a preposition. Parts of speech apply to usage in the grammatical construct. That is the whole point: something must exits since nothing does not exist. Analysis should not replace reason. Perhaps, you do not like a natural view of the origin of the universe, responder Piskas

Nothing and eternity are concepts the meaning of which have no existence. Something always existed because nothing does not exist. Why should we have many discussions about non-existents? Nothing cannot be. The first existent just existed. Time, again, is a concept, too, that the meaning of which has no existence.

It appears to me the issue is a matter of perception by the perceiver, perceiving the perception as the brain unifies.

I just offered that post as a hope. Our understanding of reality is deficient. You might be interested in this: If death is annihilation, all of eternity is a one night's dreamless sleep. And some people still believe in God. I have heard it said that over immense periods of time even the complete works of Shakespeare can recur, but I think that the outlook is bleak for an indestructible body.

The French philosopher and tax collector, Lavoisier, said before he lost his head that nothing is ever gained or lost but changes do result. If that is the case, perhaps our consciousness and memories are preserved somewhere. The one immaterial that I am almost convinced is real is space. I look at the absence of visible material every day and think about space. It cannot be made of atoms. Neutrinos and particle-waves pass through it everyday unhampered. Immaterial space is perfect for the universe. Dark matter, like the ether, is a myth.

A correct definition of consciousness is required. Consciousness is the awake state of "I" during which "I" can exercise it's functions such as mentality, experience feelings and be aware, etc. Another consciousness is unconscious, difficult to define.

Correct. There is no past. The present has passed but the pass does not exist. Existence is moving forward,

My apologies.

Infinite, like nothing, does not exist; they are merely concepts.

Infinity, like nothing, has no real existence; they are merely concepts.

In my view Kant rejected materialism and chose idealism in or to protect religion, especially Lutheranism.

There are arguments against the existence of mind. I say the brain supports what is called mind. As to matter, it could not create itself; therefore, it emanated from an immaterial existent. In the pre-universe, it may be argued that the first existent was immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual. Unlike some physicists who say space is made of something, it might not be. Other than immaterial space, all other existents may be matter or matter derived.

In accordance with Aristotle view of potential and actual, eternal and immaterial space became actual liberating the energy of the big bang. This just a plausible view. I cannot say it is certain. But I can link current reality with imagined reality.

I cannot observe outside of the universe; however, the restriction on observation does not apply to mentality. I imagined the pre-universe where the eternal and first existent could have been. I imagined that eternal first existent to be eternal and immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual.

Matter and some of its derivatives require space; motions, which are the fundamental process, have no need of time. When all motions stop, there is no time. Again, I do not think that time exists; if it does, it is a real immaterial existent.

My view is that time does not exist. Change is the genus and different motions is the species. To offer a definition, time is the measurement of motion. A measurement is done by a measurer. In my view, time was created by man as a convenience, etc. If time exists, it, like space, is a real immaterial.

It seems necessary that there was one first existent since their is existence. And I reiterate: either nothing exists or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist and that existence is you--plural. From another view: nothing must exist since there cannot be a first existent. When the beginning is nothing, nothing comes from nothing; therefore, the universe does not exist and it is a halloween trick because you and I do not exist. I think that there was one first eternal existent and that was immaterial space.