Nice tautology, but by definition that doesn't add anything to the argument.
nothing does nothing
Rigorously prove this. We'll wait.
therefore nothing can come from nothing.
Depending on your approach to step #2, this is either another useless tautology, or simply false. Please fill in your middle step with something more than just your own personal premise.
Don't forget that something coming from nothing is no less than a miracle and materialists don't believe in miracles.
Why exactly would it be a miracle? Counterintuitive, perhaps, but you have yet to establish that something might not actually be able to come from nothing after all. There hasn't been a whole lot of study of "nothing", so perhaps it has qualities we're not as yet familiar with, but which are hardly supernatural.
Furthermore, your firm declaration that "nothing can come from nothing" also poses a major problem for the "God" hypothesis. If "nothing can come from nothing", then neither can He, since he's "something". He was *always* here, you say? Well then, if you cede that something can "always" exist without a beginning, then maybe our "something" did and thus there's no need to invoke God to create it -- hoist on your own petard.
I don't think you'd make it very far in a career as a philosopher.
This roadblock for evolution is also proof for the existence of God.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!! By the same (il)logic, it would also be "proof" for the existence of, say, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra the sun god, *and* Osiris.
Moses wrote 3500 years ago that the universe was created from nothing.
And what evidence do you have that he was correct in his surmise?
This is (another) weak spot in your thesis. All your talk about the properties of "nothing" become moot if our "something" in fact came from earlier "somethings", and not "nothing".
Evolutionists and secular cosmologists invent their own anemic versions of how something came from nothing but Moses said it first so the burden of proof in on the evos.
You have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "the burden of proof". By your *cough* reasoning *cough*, the Hindus "said it first" before even Moses, so *you* then have the burden of proof concerning your young Moses upstart.
I repeat -- never try to make a living as a philosopher.
Why exactly would it be a miracle? Counterintuitive, perhaps
Of course it would be a miracle and materialism cannot explain. Materialism proposes the rearrangement of matter as the source of all things. You cannot rearrange what does not exist and 1000 pages of rhetorical nonsense cannot change that.