On the chance that you won't read the link I provided, I would like to explain the fundamental flaw in your post: It relies on "nothing"'s being something. But "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.
Originally posted by nevagil
Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.
You see what I mean? You are saying that there can be "parts" of "nothing". That doesn't make sense, as, if it can be divided into parts, it's something.
Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.
Ok, here's where the problem lies: you are confusing the word "nothing" for "emptiness". To be empty, is to be in a certain state, but the word, "nothing", is not a state.