The Short Version…
Definition:
Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.
OK, I'll accept that. (It can perhaps be improved, but it captures what's important in these arguments.)
Hypothesis:
No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness
I'm not sure that I want to agree with that.
For one thing, "come from" needs more clarity. 'Come from' might mean temporally-prior efficient cause. There couldn't be any temporally prior cause in this 'something from nothing' case, simply by definition. But 'come from' might mean something rather different, something like 'explanatory principles'. Whatever it is that we use to explain something else. (The vaunted 'laws of physics' would be an example here.) And again, in this 'something from nothing' case, we seem to have ruled out explanatory principles by definition. So I'm agreeing with you I guess, regardless of which version we choose.
But... I'm not sure how we get from there to 'no real and actual thing can come from absolute nothingness'. I can imagine something like the "big bang", where not only space, time and matter, but the 'laws of physics' that describe their behavior, just... appear... at some initial instant (counting back from 'now') in the past and the universe evolves from there. It's certainly possible to imagine events happening without any cause or explanation. Perhaps not everything that happens (including universes popping into existence) requires a cause or a reason.
I think that you and I, and many people, would agree that there's just something... wrong... about that. It's kind of an intellectual surrender for one thing. Certainly it leaves the huge universal "why" question unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable). Why
is there something rather than nothing??
Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now.
I'm not sure that I want to agree with that. Nor am I sure that one need to hypothesize that 'absolute nothingness' ever existed. (Wouldn't positing the existence of absolute non-existence be self-contradictory?) It's more about acknowledging the
contingency of reality. Why is reality
this way rather than
that way? Why is there such a thing as reality
at all?? Something vital to our understanding, arguably the most important thing, still seems to be missing.
For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Therefore, the very fact that You exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been.
Something is eternal.
Physics certainly seems to agree.
The difference is that physics imagines the 'eternal', their timeless explanatory principles, the 'givens' in their arguments, as abstract principles: the principles of logic, of mathematics, and their beloved 'laws of nature'. (Krauss' quantum field theory among them.)
The theists imagine their 'eternal', their explanatory principle, the 'given' in all their arguments, as a
person, an anthropomorphized personality often lifted from ancient mythology, their "God".
Both versions have deep roots in the late antique and medieval Platonic traditions. The physicists still rely on their beloved 'Forms', which they scrawl like magic incantations on their chalkboards, except that many of them no longer imagine the Forms to be ideas in the mind of God. (Nor should they...)
They still face the problem of accounting for them though. (Even if many of them would prefer not to go there...)
That being said, positing eternal being to explain everything else doesn't really solve the problem. One still needs to be able to answer why eternal being exists rather than nothing at all....
I think that I'm going to remain an agnostic on these matters. I simply
don't know why there is something rather than nothing, nor do I know why all the something takes the form it seemingly does and answers to the kind of explanatory principles that physics likes to throw at it.
And I don't even know how one would go about providing the missing explanations. What kind of explanatory principles can we appeal to in trying to explain the existence of absolutely
everything? (Including the explanatory principles themselves.)
I do agree with JamesR though, that personifying the explanatory principle(s) and using the word "God" doesn't really bring us any closer to an answer.