Please do your best to respond to this post. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.
Cause and effect. How can something come out of nothing? How could the very first thing that happened to start the universe not be effected by anything? It has to go back and back and back until one thing that effected something without being caused. That, I believe, was a god. Can somebody please prove this point wrong?
Well those who believe God created the Universe from nothing do. They must. Therefore they cling on to causality with (logical) Cosmological Arguments.
But cause and effect is logically tricky business when you come down to the quantum realm. When you look at single carbon 14 atom it suddenly and without any attributable cause (principally unpredictably) releases an electron and an antineutrino and (beta decay) turns into a nitrogen 14 atom. There you have an effect without a cause. It happens all the time, well not all the time fortunately, it happens averaged out (with a Poisson probability distribution) over lots and lots of carbon 14 atoms such that if you look 5730 years later half of them have disappeared.
In addition to this you have the Uncertainty relations between time and energy and momentum and position that begin to become very violent actors when you begin to shrink the Universe down to Planck scale proportions.
Basically the difference between a virtual and a real photon is the duration of it's existence. A virtual photon can be seen as a short fluctuation in the electromagnetic field in accordance with the time-energy uncertainty relation. The more energetic the virtual photon, the sooner it must return it's energy borrowed from the vacuum and be annihilated, the less far it can travel during it's short existence.
When two electrons (like charges) repel they actually exchange the message of their unwelcome presence by way of virtual photons. Electrons, protons and all particles/ antiparticles with charge can be imagined to be shrouded in a cloud of virtual photons.
Real photons are stable and can exist for billions of years, but can also be absorbed and (re-)emitted. When they for example are absorbed by an atom, which happens only if the photon has exactly the right energy (the right wavelength) it causes the atom after "absorbing" the photon to become "excited." This corresponds in the Bohr model with the electron going up from a lower in a higher "orbit." (The "orbits" in this model are quantized, so they are only allowed certain specific orbits/ energies. For a hydrogen atom this can simply be calculated by dividing the lowest energy level, the "ground state" of -13,6 eV by the square of the n-th excited state. The minus sign is arbitrary in that it comes from setting the energy by which the electron just leaves the hydrogen nucleus to zero, just by convention. You can then calculate the corresponding wavelength of photons that are emitted when electrons jump between orbits with the Rydberg formula. When you go up the table of elements this becomes much more complicating very quickly.)
In the experiment they were talking about the vacuum of course. (Actual) nothing does not exist anywhere in this Universe. ("Existing" is itself a temporal concept and because it requires the existence of time could not apply to it and so forth.) I find "nothing" an unintelligible concept. I am hardly able to contemplate it as an abstraction.
When was there ever nothing?
So here's your argument:
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. There is something.
3. Therefore God!
I think most of us find the leap from 2 to 3 to be a bit absurd... Even if we concede that something cannot come from nothing, we have no reason to believe that something at the start of the big bang was God.
Further, if something has to come from something, where did God come from? God is something, yes? That's essential to your own argument, yet you don't take it one step further... If something must come from something and God is something, then God must have come from something, too.
If you believe in God, does he sit around wondering how he came into being?
We don't have to prove it wrong. The onus is on theist to prove it WAS a god that did it. We can say, "We don't know what happened but we're trying to find out."
Furthermore, on a practical level, who cares? If you or someone else did prove a god created it all, great! Until then, though, it's just one of those things we don't know yet. It's not going to change my day one bit
I actually put together a blog awhile back that goes over how the universe can emerge from nothing. I used purely deductive logic (no need to understand quantum theory, although this addresses it from a philosophical angle).