Something could have possibly come from nothing

He is correct also, that I bear the BOP. It is my duty to show that something can come from nothing. Most people intuitively believe that something could not have possibly come from nothing. However, I believe this is false. I would argue that the potential for the first something = nothing, necessarily. One may argue the reverse, that the potential for something = something in this context (which, I will address), but this is incorrect as well. Argument In Favor Of The Resolution TPFTFS = The Potential For The First "Something", N = "Nothing", S = "Something" P1: TPFTFS = N or S P2: If TPFTFS = N, then S could have possibly come from N P3: TPFTFS = N C: S could have possible came from N ("Something" could have possibly come from "nothing") The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises, now lets see if we have good reasons to believe the premises are true. This would not only make the argument valid, but sound as well, rendering the conclusion unavoidable. Defense of Premise 1This premise can be supported by the law of excluded middle [1]. Either there is a presence of something ("something") or there is an absence of something ("nothing") at a certain point. There is no third option, this is not a false dichotomy. I believe this is self-evident, but if I just so happen to be wrong I'm sure my opponent will let me know about it. Defense of Premise 2If there is TPFTFS, then obviously, S can exist and TPFTFS is capable of allowing S by definition:"Po·ten·tial adj. 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem. "For example, if a working lighter has the potential to cause a flame to ignite, then it is possible for this ignition to actually happen. I mean, if I have a working lighter in my hand which has potential to cause a fire, it is possible for me to cause a flame to ignite with it, this is obviously apparent. Therefore, it follows logically, that if TPFTFS = N, then it is possible for something to come from nothing. The potential directly infers possibility and capability. If TPFTFS = N, this would affirm the resolution. Defense of Premise 3TPFTFS could not = S. If TPFTFS = S, then it couldn't be TPFTFS, because it would already be S. This would be impossible, contradictory, and incoherent. For example, If I am engaged in the act of jumping, then it would be impossible for me to have the potential to engage in the first jump in existence while already in the act of jumping. If there is a flower, it would be impossible for it potentially turn into the first flower in existence, because it is already a flower. It being able to turn into the first flower in existence, at a point when it is already a flower, literally makes no sense like a spherical rectangle. Therefore, the potential for the first something (TPFTFS) could not exist if "something" (S) itself exists simultaneously. This means, there is no way TPTFS = S. Since TPTFS could not = S, and TPFTFS must = N or S, then TPFTFS = N, necessarily. Premise 3 has been defended sufficiently. Defense of the Conclusion The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Since TPFRFS = N or S, and TPFTFS could not = S, then TPFTFS = N, necessarily. Also, since TPFTFS entails the possibility of S, and TPSTFS = N, then S could have possibly come from N ("something" could have possibly come from "nothing"). The resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...