Universe from Nothing?

[Mister Agenda]

Who says the universe came from nothing?

How would a materialist begin, if not with nothing?

Welcome, JIL. What preceded this iteration of the universe is unknown, and it's not inconsistent with materialism to acknowledge that. 'Philosophical nothingness', that is, 'absolutely nothing' has no properties. It being impossible for anything to be produced by it is a property. Therefore it is a contradiction to conclude that 'from nothing, nothing can proceed'. However, quantum physics suggests that absolute nothingness is impossible, and that the closest to nothing that can exist is the quantum foam. One model for the beginning of the universe is a quantum fluctuation of that medium, which can't 'not exist'. Another possibility that doesn't contradict materialism would be that the universe existed prior to the 'big bang' but it was in a different state. The universe may have existed eternally, in various states.

If you begin with any other concept, wouldn't you of necessity invoke a descriptive / supportive framework - such as, say, quantum physics?

There's no reason to suppose whatever preceded the big bang couldn't be described if we knew enough about it. The problem isn't lack of natural explanations, but not being able to determine which of the most plausible ones is most likely.

But if a materialist allowed a conceptual framework at or before the start of anything, or, from "eternity" then he would need to explain the existence of this framework, which is, of itself, a conceptual entity - a supernatural thing.

Materialism doesn't involve any requirement not to have brute facts. Your designation of an eternal framework as supernatural (or conceptual entities as such) does not make it so.

Materialism, by definition, cannot allow anything supernatural.

Materialism is the position that everything is natural. The proven existence of something supernatural would disprove it. Word games will not.

If you think about it, the invisible laws which uphold the observable universe are far more astounding than the universe itself.

Those 'invisible laws' are our description of things we observe in the universe that appear to be consistent so far. What they're descriptions of is properties of the universe.

The Universe is like a program that runs inside of an operating system. There is an invisible operating system which guides all observable particle behavior, directs all forces.

That would be interesting if you could demonstrate that it's true. Be careful, you might wind up proving that the universe actually IS an operating system and all of this is just a computer simulation.

What you see is what is running. What you don't see is the framework that makes all the behavior you can observe, possible.

How do you know that what you've just said is true?