[zeroca]

Hi!
May I couldn’t express clearly what I wanted to say, or you got me wrong.
The two opposite assertions about the existence of universe are:

1. The universe existed always permanently, eternally (in the space during the time), so any assumption that it was born once isn’t considered, isn’t allowed.

2. It was born once, which means that only nothing existed just before the birth and there didn’t exist a three-dimensional space and time (i.e. "existed only nothing in itself").

When I say that it was born “at a certain moment” I don’t mean that time existed before the birth, I say it figuratively, to emphasize the simultaneous birth of universe, space and time; that’s to say that space and time were born with the birth of universe together “simultaneously”,
I don’t say as well that the universe arose “inside the time and that the time was flowing even before the beginning of the universe” and I don’t prove as well that “change is nothing”.

I say: if we assume that nothing existed before the birth of the world, then the only kind of change in nothing is splitting of it into two equal but opposite parts. Any other sort of change in it is impossible. I don’t say that happened definitely so, but this statement has the possibility of being true, whether anybody likes it or not. And if this universe arose this way, so it has the probability to die the same way, i.e. if annihilation happens the universe will turn into nothing again. The processes of birth and fading away of universe follow each other in succession infinitely often and if we call fading away-“the interruption”, we can easily prove that this interruption doesn’t last inside the time, this episode equals to zero, and the any previous die of universe turns into its following birth “immediately”, i.e. this universe (might with some interruptions) exists permanently in the space during the time.
As for the assertion that the universe exists on a basis of plus and minus, it can be discussed another time.