No scientist nowadays says anymore that the universe came from nothing. That is at least thirty years old, Leon. It is very out of date.

The good physicists now declare the universe only in as far as they can know it and they do not venture in the area where they were not able to obtain any information or knowledge.

There is a bit of a gray zone, in that many (many!) do recognize that matter could not have come from nothing, but again they only venture into this area when they either have data or when they have theories based on data and subsequently fill it in with data or theories from elsewhere.

If I haven't said this before, then let's be really clear about this: the material universe is considered a result by all physicists and their mothers.

As such, they express certainty that there was a prior state, and yet they will not venture very far into that state.

Even those that like the quantum-fluctuation beginning, start out in the pre-materialized universe. They do not venture much into it, but they are not standing in this material universe.

So, Leon, please review your positions.

• Know me as that person that will grant you any belief that you may have. I will honor you and if need be -and possible- even defend you in your belief.

But when we use the word God to have a word that can capture the prior state without us having to dig in any further, then we are still obliged to make sure that this God is not a God of our own making, but the actual God.

Same for the prior state of the universe. We have to make sure it is the real prior state of the universe (little as we may know about it), and not the prior state we like it to be. I see you pick a prior state that you like, that fits your thinking. That is then not the smartest outcome.

Thank you for sharing your larger thoughts with me. I do appreciate it much, but I also recognize that --structurally-- you are holding on to an immaculate egg of magical proportions.

That said, I do think you are smart, and my proposal is that you investigate both options at the same time. Give each option equal space and gnaw on them with your mental capabilities. Don't pick just the one you already consider correct. Put the opposite in place as well and look at the both of them. Place the breaking-the-egg point once before and once after materialization; review them for what they are worth.

Here is Rubin's Vase as a help.

If you consider the starting point of the material universe to be the Vase, then see how the two shadows next to it are unimportant.

If you consider the starting point of the material universe to be the Two Faces, then see how the empty spot in the center is also unimportant, except for its central location.

The Vase says that all is somehow connected to all (of the Vase).

The Two Faces say that all belongs to their Faces, but that each Face is independent from the other Face.

That means that in the center, we either have a full connection among all for the Vase, or (and this is still in the center) we have a communal spot with information that applies to both Faces where their information fully agrees plus the few things that they disagree on (for instance, left and right are not the same in both Faces).

Think, Leon. Investigate all options as if they were brand new, and only then pick the best fitting one. If you start out with a favorite, then you'll end up picking that favorite and that is then a self-fulfilling prophecy.