I enjoyed reading your article. However, I would like to respond to one of your points. Item 3 your opening sentence you make the claim ““Nothing” is not how you probably define it“. This statement on its face is obviously problematic, you can’t have “something” and then call it “nothing”.

Nothingness by definition is the absence of everything. There is no vacuum, no particles, waves etc. or coordinates of area for these “things” to exist in. Vacuum, particles, waves etc. all possess ontology, or more simply properties. These ontological properties defines them as “things” not “nothings”. This is the immutable law of logic “ex nihilo nihil fit”, which translated from Latin means “Out of nothing, nothing comes”. Nothingness is void of any ontological properties to do or create anything.

Because we live in a contingent cosmos, “every effect must have an antecedent cause” and through causal regression (big bang), most contemporary cosmologists agree that our cosmos began to exist. Therefore by inductive observation of our cosmos, deductively there must by necessity exist a “cause”.

While we theists believe that God is by definition not an “effect” but rather an “uncaused cause”, that is a non-contingent, self-existent, actually eternal (no beginning and no end) being, Your argument is based on the same premise that there is indeed an actually eternal something for anything to exist.