This is a subject I have given some thought to, and would like to hear the opinion of others. The question is, if you don’t have anything(and by this I mean nothing in the absolute,so no potential exists), is it then possible to acquire something. I would just like to hear your common sense, to the point answers please. Also I would like to hear your opinion on whether a non conscious “potential for everything”, could solve this paradox(ie:that if you have something now, how? when at no point is it possible to have the conditions required for creation without already having a creating thing in existence, which requires the same explanations of origin).This potential would contain all concepts such as time, space, change and awareness, but would not in itself be a “thing”, but rather the possibility for things to exist, with a probability denoting there frequency in existence.
To answer your first clause, if it is possible to acquire something if you have absolutely nothing, I would say yes. Why? Well, doesn’t everything have to start out from somewhere, or better yet nowhere; hence, the nothingness?
If you consider something, it always appears to have emerged out of nothing.
Edit: Of course, you can also always take the opposite perspective.
Yes, that is basically what I was getting at. Now my question: where does nothing start? What is prior to the state of nothingness?
No, and this is a basic premise through which materialists usually get destroyed. Some weak arguements are that this is based only on observing the world around us (inductive reasoning) or that causality does not necessarily apply outside of space-time (before the universe came into existence)
quantum physics also addresses this as our own devices of evaluation (or measurement) exist in the physical world and are therefore subject to a certain state. therefore the attempt is to quantify both the observational systems and what is observed into one quantifiable system. As a result, space-time appears to be a matter of perspective used to fill in yet unknown information about reality. Yet this logic ironically negates itself because it ultimate identifies physicality as a product of perspective and that ultimately things exist outside of space-time (i.e. your consciousness).
First Cause is needed only if something has a beginning
Well, I don’t fully understand what you are getting at by saying nothing in the absolute sense. Please explain more. Because I would argue that the original premise is false as, if you are an aware being then you cannot have nothing as you at least have awareness, a body, a life etc. Are you asking from an origin issue such as where did the original “matter” come from? if not then I’m not sure we can discuss this anymore as the original premise is faulty.
Hugin
As to weather nothing can give forth an actual thing, I would say anything produced would prove that you had it already, but were not aware you had it. So it would then pose the question “where did this come from”. I don’t believe it can be possible to have “nothing”, I think there always exists an underlying potential for all events to occur. I would say this could be compared to every living thing being totally unconscious ( like before there conception). Everything would still exist, but with no conscious contemplation, it would be just the potential for an event to occur. Is this possible ?
In answer to Hugin. I wasn’t really talking about matter because as I understand it physics has proved that mass is a quality of energy, rather than an unrelated independent permenant thing, what we describe as mass is caused by the behaviour of energy isn’t it ?
this is something i posted in forum: “no differences among things can be identified by…?”
…my thoughts about nothing are this- we (something) can never imagine nothing because whatever we (something) imagine(s) is something! 
that should help you
I don’t know about something from nothing, but I know you can’t get something for nothing…
In response to helptheherd I would suggest that “nothing” can be imagined as a concept, only if you except that no actual thought can be used to elaborate on the concept. So nothing is not a thing you can actually think about, the concept must be stated with no thought to what it is, otherwise your thinking of something.
I’ll quote myself:
Hugin wrote: Well, I don’t fully understand what you are getting at by saying nothing in the absolute sense. Please explain more. Because I would argue that the original premise is false as, if you are an aware being then you cannot have nothing as you at least have awareness, a body, a life etc. I will try and elaborate on what I mean by “nothing”. I mean nothing at all, no matter, no time, no space, no thought and no potential for anything to exist. If nothing exists in this sense, is it then possible to ever have something. I would say no. Which leads me to the belief there has always been something in existence, even if that thing is just the potential for existence.
Nobody say God… oops…
To respond to the OP, how is it possible to get potential from no potential?
Is there a such thing s no potential?
I don’t think we can understand how no potential gives rise to potential any more than we can understand the origins of existence.
Instead of trying to get something from nothing, I recommend to all for whom this question becomes an issue that they deploy the search function on this website and find how easy it is, on this very matter, to rather get nothing from something…
harr harr…
unless everything has always existed something came from nothing…
Given that we lack knowledge of a necessary connection between things, we can’t come to the conclusion that X can’t come from Y, even if X is somethingness and Y is nothingness. It could be the case that the universe started because last night I drank a beer.
I’m not sure this is true, unless there is no sense in anything. In which case there would be no logical sequence to the events we perceive, but this is not the case so your statement must be false. If all the available information is considered then it is clear you cant get something from nothing. Which must mean there is an eternal potential that has always existed, from which all events are realised according to there probability.
That must be correct. Time is a property of energy, not vice versa.
There is no beginning of the universe, nor are there ever any absolute beginnings or endings of any ‘things’ - the whole concept of beginnings and endings is acquired from our subjective mortality. Does one ever understand an event as an ending or a beginning without first having to interpret it as ‘the beginning of x or y?’ No - beginnings and endings are functions of interpretations, not of experience.
always amusing, how this question is constantly coming up on ILP, even after it is shown to be meaningless time and again… one must conclude that its the question itself, and not the ‘answer’ which holds the attention and reverent interest of the metaphysical followers here.
when those here realise that the concept “something from nothing” is not the affirmation of their metaphysics, but rather would represent the total destruction thereof, perhaps we can finally lose interest in trying to “understand” that which is nonsensical and meaningless to begin with…
or maybe, its the destructive instinct itself (a ‘metaphysics of destruction?’) which refuses to roll over and die…