"That's not nothing"

[MindForgedManacle]

Despite carefully explaining exactly what he means: there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, at the closest we can get to it, there is still quantum foam.

...Okay? That doesn't escape the equivocation fallacy. Saying "The closest we can get to X is Y, therefore X is Y" is clearly fallacious.

'No potentiality for creation' is a property, and an awfully convenient one for Craig to apply to nothingness, given that he wants to conclude that 'nothing can come from nothing'.

Again, that's just obviously playing on language. Not having any properties is NOT a property. And if you're going to be consistent, you might as well say that non-existent things have the property of non-existence. It's absurd, but that's what is entailed by what you're saying.

That is true. It is also true that if the energy balance of the universe ('negative' energy plus 'positive' energy) is not exactly zero, it is very, very, close to zero.

So? These are still existent things. They couldn't (even in principle) balance off to be "nothing".

The quantum fluctuations themselves are something from nothing. There is no true nothingness because nothingness 'fizzes'.

And here we go again. Are you saying there isn't anything, and yet it "fizzes"? If you are, then you're contradicting yourself. Processes require there to be something going through the process or action, i.e you don't have rolling going on without something that exists which is rolling.

The uncertainty principle says that you cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle. The position and momentum of a particle that doesn't exist is 0,0. Since we can't know that, it might exist, and therefore it does, at least sometimes. Quantum vacuum fluctuations aren't coming from something, they are causeless.

The uncertainty principle is an epistemic barrier, I don't think it has anything to do with ontology.

Even if there were no space and time, these fluctuations would still happen, they are essentially temporary bits of energy and space flashing into and out of existence. That's how the hypothesis goes, anyway.

Which means they exist, and hence are a referent, a thing.

Clearly it has the property of not having properties. It seems superficially to involve a contradiction to say nothingness has no properties.

I already dealt with this above, but for a quick recap: that is absurd. Not having a property is not itself a property. Otherwise I could, under that paradigm, say all non-existent things have the property of non-existence. But having properties denotes existing, hence demonstrating a contradiction in your account.