I thank you Phileas, for I see you are actually seeking to engage in meaningful discussion instead of relying on cynicism and sarcasm.
I also recognize some of the arguments you are using.
I think a quantum physicist would disagree on that one.
They would only disagree if they maintain that a vaccuum is no-thing.
But do they maintain that a vaccuum in space is "nothing"? And should they. I do not know of many that maintain this. However, I do know of a contemporary philosopher who does.
The American contemporary philosopher Quentin Smith maintains that a quantum vaccuum in which short lived particles and anti-particles interact, qualifies as these particles coming into existence from nothing.
But is this accurate? There are several reasons why it is not:
The motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle that states:
1.' Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Even Quentin Smith who uses this as part of his argument himself admits: "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the
change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle
x's position from
q1 to
q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).
Smith seeks rectify this defect in his argument, however, by pointing out that the Uncertainty relation also permits energy or particles (notably virtual particles) to "spontaneously come into existence" for a very brief time before vanishing again. It is therefore false that "all beginnings of existence are caused" and, hence, ". . . the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang . . . is faulty" (pp. 50-51).
But as a counterexample to (1'), Smith's use of such vacuum fluctuations is
highly misleading. For
virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.
As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as
local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986]
, p. 440).
The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence.
A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Credit goes to Dr. William Lane Craig for all of the above.
There is a major problem with infinite regression to an unmoved mover. The universe is something and therefore requires a cause. God is implied to be the cause, but then what caused God? Ah, but nothing caused God for He is the uncaused cause. So why can't the universe be the uncaused cause and just remove that extra bit of regression. Because the universe is something and therefore requires a cause. Does that not then imply that God is not something as He requires no cause?
Excellent question!
When you use the word "something" you are referring to a contingent entity. The universe and all the hierarchy of contingent things that might be imagined to exist within it is itself contingent. Why?
Because of the principle which states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause for it's existence.
Cosmology has shown us that the universe is not eternal but that it came to be at some point in the distant past. And since no one seriously can maintain that something can come from nothing, it remains that the universe is contingent.
God, it is maintained, is not contingent upon anything because He is immaterial and aseitc (uncaused) and therefore can be the unmoved mover and/or the uncaused cause.
I mean think about it for a moment. Does it not make sense? As far back as your mind can go, it has to end with the concept of the greatest conceivable being who is everything that the God of the Bible reveals Himself to be.
In fact, it is necessary that this God self-disclose Himself to us. For apart from this, we could not know anything about Him. The apostle Paul says He has done this in several ways, namely through what has been created!
When we look at the universe, we are to understand that this grandeur is evidence of God's existence.
Before the discovery that the universe had a beginning, people could more plausibly maintain that the universe was simply eternal. But that is not honestly maintainable now.
Every true scientific discovery only serves to lend credibility to Genesis 1:1 which states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...
I've never experienced the birth of a universe either. 
Have a good day. I pray you and yours are well! 
