[donh]

Without redefining the universe as a big cumultive "nothing", or rethinking conservation, something from nothing does not work.

This is just a confusing way of trying to sneak the law of causality back onto the discussion. There is no scientific law of conservation of causality, just as there is no scientific law of the conservation of something-ness. there is nothing that can "not work", because there is not work to be done. "Causality" or "something-ness" is a human classification scheme, not a force of nature. As per your reference to Hawking--first there was nothing, then there was a particle and its anti-particle. Energy was conserved, which is a scientific law. Something-ness was not, because it ain't.

This is a prime example of using the fallacy of the excluded middle to make an argument.

[unlearner]

I think we are at an impasse on causality and nothingness. You made some good points, albeit not persuasive enough for me. While I think it might be useful to explore the implications of causality not being true, perhaps we have explored enough tangents for this thread.