I have to be brief (cause I'm heading to work), but I'll examine your questions closely. I'm sure they are tough ones too. It could be that I can't answer them in any plausible or intelligent way.
I was studying (some) quantum physics to see if it could possibly answer some of the gaps that Genesis leaves us with. And even though I proposed some ideas based on general theory, I was also very interested in any sound arguements that would negate some or all of those ideas. (Or perhaps indicate some other possibilities.)
You seem well studied. I hope you didn't take any comments as disrespectful in any way. Your comments I am examining closely for things to learn.
Pig: (This reminds me of the movie "Babe.")
Bobcat -Why couldn't "that force" "advance over unimaginably large periods of time to create" - "simpler things"?
Are you implying that god (that force) could have evolved? That he started off simple and advanced?Nothing" cannot "exist." It is, by definition, non-existent. "Nothing" is a concept somewhat akin to zero.
What you quoted was a question. It was built from things you were saying. It could be that I did not understand what you were saying.
I believe that God always existed and has always been at his zenith. And that "zenith" represents an infinite ability. Thus, everything he created would be less than that. That is how I was viewing "simpler." Some of quantum physics seems to overlay that idea nicely. But I also accept the possibility that I am mistaken. And I know I still have much to learn.
As for evolution, I know life that I have observed has a great ability to adapt. To me, the jury is still out on whether that translates into evolutionary ability. And it could be that the ideas of adaptability and evolution somewhat overlap each other.
I'm not going to take your word for this [about "nothing"]. But I'm sure that topic would go way over my head if physics professor tried to explain it to me.
It's really "nothing" to get upset about. I would also say, don't worry about it going over anyone's head. It's "nothing" really.
(Incidentally, Wikipedia has an article about "Nothing" here.)
For the record, I don't believe life, or anything else, can come from "nothing." I was taking "nothing" in the OPs question to mean "non-living," since to take "nothing" literally would create a contradiction - to me at least. It could be that he/she did not mean it the way that I was viewing it.