As well as virtual particles existing with actual particles, they exist and disappear in space that contains nothing, no energy, no matter, no 'actual' particles, nothing. These sub atomic virtual particles flicker in and out of existence - from nothing, overall described in Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Foam. Virtual particle pairs near the event horizons of Black Holes is a principle element of Hawking Radiation. A place where virtual particles also get transformed into actual particles. With respect, I'm sure you understand how fundamental QM is to appreciating the rules by which the universe actually works. So isn't it a bit silly for you to be that dismissive in saying you have to have "faith" in something Quantum Mechanics is describing and explaining? Especially so when virtual particles and their effects can be calculated measured and well tested through experiment all the time. Sure more knowledge and better math is needed and more learning to gain a fuller understanding of what's going on, but when QM explains a process it does so with astounding information and in line with the basic laws of physics. In virtual particles, QM allows something from nothing and reasonable to accept as at least extremely feasible. Just as it was reasonable to consider the astonishing QM behind lasers and transistors reasonable before their discovery. Quantum Mechanics describes virtual particles and addresses the chicken - egg - something from nothing question. That's what you requested.
Yes, QM does an excellent job of explaining how the universe works, but it's all based on mathematical assumptions. If those assumptions are wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, the entire theory collapses. Far as QM explaining and describing things, well, so does the bible. Sure you can say it doesn't do a very good job of it and I would agree, but putting all my faith in a theory based on assumptions doesn't cut it either. The science is not settled and that's a good thing. We need more research. Now addressing the chicken and egg thing, some people would argue that there is no such thing as a true vacuum, least not that we can reproduce. There's always something there, even if it's a virtual partial. Impossible as yet to see or measure, but something is there influencing surrounding particles.
Your first point suggests to me you think it reasonable to compare and give equal weight to mathematical assumptions and some actual calculations that measure real effects based on sound principles, against imaginary assertions based on no rational reasoning. Second point, agreed, there is supposed to be no such thing as a true vacuum, because of virtual particles influencing themselves, in what should otherwise be a true vacuum. There is far too much science to ignore the potential for something out of nothingness.The chicken and egg is in the very least potentially addressed by it all. To refuse that on the grounds every i doesn't have a dot and every t is not crossed is I think, unreasonable.
Regarding the first point I'm saying that there are alternative explanations that some people, not necessarily myself, are satisfied with. For them it's settled. A mistaken position IMO, but who am I to judge? Lastly, we are talking about the creation of everything we know, so I do think it prudent that every i has it's dot, and every t is crossed before jumping to any conclusions. I'm in no hurry to know for sure. The learning journey is the interesting part. Besides, I have been absolutely certain of heady things before, only to find out I was wrong. Science is more right that religion on this issue, much more right IMO, but that doesn't mean the mystery of it all isn't any less fascinating.
There's no argument there are alternative views and it is settled for some however, that is a different issue altogether. My point being you cannot reasonably bring those unsupported assertions of the imagination up to the same level or give equal weight to them as you might for scientific propositions, which is what you were suggesting. Science by its construct even where incomplete, underpins with facts in line with fundamental laws of nature. I agree one should not jump to conclusions but that wasn't my suggestion or point. That you are in no hurry to know for sure is neither really here nor there, but may leave you with no good proposition for no good reason. Perhaps a little like those who have already settled on a conclusion. But this was about seeking a basically feasible, possible and preferably practical suggestion that could lead sensibly to a potential solution to an age old question. Absolute certainty is unreasonable and unnecessary. Certainty to a very high degree from observation and measurement is what science does, and in that regard it addresses the something from nothing question, with some hard albeit yet incomplete science. Nevertheless, a reasonable and practical proposition for something from nothing in the real world. I very much agree with you the mystery of it all is fascinating.
Why am I not surprised you would? Reviewed by Dr. Kim? I wonder what Dr. Kim said. That in itself should make a dandy Youtube video. For everyone else, see here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611034.pdf
How anyone can discuss the bible and God with a straight face in today's age is beyond me. God is not abstract or unknown. It's simply an anthropomorphization of the Sun. Think about it. You can see and feel the Sun. The Sun brings light and warmth and food. Without it we would all die. How anyone can worship something else is insanity. Don't ask silly questions like 'well how did the Sun get there? ' because you invite only silly responses.
child birth became painful when apes started walking upright. You heard it first in the Bible, science is just now catching up. There was nothing and then there was something. Difficult to comprehend but it's all there in the Bible. These stories have been passed down since the beginning of time. The Bible just gives you a starting point. And those stories were not orginal in the Torah but shared with all other cultures. Where did that original thinking come from? Who knows, but every decade science uncovers something new which seems to confirm the simple way the old story is told. I would not shut down science in a young inquiring mind by scolding them for asking a silly question like "How did the sun get there?" Believers have no concern what will happen to us after the sun burns out. We all know it will. And this idea that science only matters as long as man is alive is very short sighted.
Not sure what you mean. Do you object to the conclusions or do you just not like the video's pedigree?