Guido Arbia writes:
The Laws of Physics would have no power to describe nature unless they reflected, either somewhat or fully, Laws existing in nature. Otherwise scientists would not have created them, for there would be nothing upon which to base them.
I agree with your idea here, I think.
Your wording can be cause for some confusion, but I think I see what you're trying to say, and I agree.
The word nothing implies that nothing can come from it.
I don't agree with that, though.
The word nothing implies, well... nothing.
Including not implying that nothing can come from it.
Why can't something come from nothing?
For if there is no thing, what is the cause of anything?
We have identified causes for many things. In fact, whenever we look for a cause, we almost always find one.
The only time we're really stumped for finding a cause, is at the very beginning of the universe.
Since the very beginning of the universe only happened once, and only happened a very, very long time ago... perhaps our thoughts on what happens here and now (things like "something can't come from nothing") do not apply to what happened once, a very, very long time ago.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I can't say it does.
And you certainly can't say it doesn't.
And if a cause is not needed, why should the universe not suddenly vanish without cause?
What's to say it's not going to?
Other than the last 14 000 000 000+ years of it not doing so, of course.
How can we rely on the scientific method to conclude anything about nature, if cause and effect being unnecessary, nature is not constant.
Because it works.
Relying on the scientific method saves more lives than not relying on it.
Relying on the scientific method builds better computers than not relying on it.
Relying on the scientific method expands our knowledge about the universe and everything in it more than not relying on it.
Maybe one day it won't.
Maybe one day something better will come along.
Maybe you'll be the one to identify that something-better.
Maybe not.
Until then, why not use what works?
So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think He does.
But this isn't exactly something to worry about, it's not as if I have a perfect track record of such things either.
In fact, pretty much nobody does.
Interesting how God doesn't seem to be able to do any better than anyone else... maybe He isn't really a God.