The notion that the universe came form nothing is an old Straw Man based on linguistic confusion:
Thus ... general relativity makes the striking prediction that at a time 1/H ago, the universe was in a singular state: The distance between all "points of space" was zero; the density of matter and the curvature of spacetime was infinite. This singular state of the universe is referred to as the big bang.
Note that the nature of this singularity is that resulting from an homogenoeous contraction of spacetime down to "zero size". The big bang does not represent an contraction of space down to "zero size". The big bang does not represent an explosion of matter concentrated at a point of preexisting, nonsingular spacetime, as it is sometime depicted and its name suggest. Since spacetime structure itself is singular in the big bang, it does not make sense, either physically or mathematically, to ask the about the state "before" the big bang; there is no natural way to extend the spacetime manifold and metric beyond the big bang singularity. Thus, general relativity lead to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang.
-- Robert M. Wald,
General Relativity, page 99.
9.1 What Is a Singularity?
Intuitively, a spacetime singularity is a "place" where the curvature "blows up" or other "pathological behavior" of the metric takes place. The difficulty in making this notion into a satisfactory, precis definition of a singularity steams from the above terms placed in quotes.
By far most serious (and, perhaps, insurmountable) difficulty arises from trying to give meaning to the idea of singularity as a "place". In all physical theories except the general relativity, the manifold and metric structure of spacetime is assumed in advance; we know the "where and when" of all spacetime events. If a physical quantity is infinite or otherwise undefined at a point in spacetime, we have no difficulties in saying that there is a singularity at that point. ... However, the situation in general relativity is completely different. Here we are trying to solve for the manifold and metric structure of spacetime itself. Since the notion of an event make physical sense only when the manifold and metric structure are defined around it, the most natural approach in general relativity is to say (as we have been doing) that a spacetime consist of a manifold M and metric g defined everywhere on M. Thus, the "big bang" singularity of the Robert-Walker solution is not considered to be part of the spacetime manifold; it is not a "place" or a "time."
...
Of course, our failure to describe a singularity as a "place" in precise mathematical terms does not in any way lessen the obvious fact that singularities exist in, say, the Robert-Walker and Schwarzschild spacetimes. It simply means that we must find other ways of characterizing a singularity.
-- Robert M. Wald,
General Relativity, page 212-214.
In other words, general relativity does not claim the universe came from nothing.... nor does it claim there was something "before" the big bang. The viewpoint can equally correct be that the universe always has existed and there was no point of creation, just a change of state of the singularity at which some "time" we says, as a figure of speech, the universe "began" to exists, but it has, as figure of speech, "always" existed; the singularity had an, as figure of speech, "eternal" existence, there was no, as figure of speech, "before", there was, as figure of speech, no creation of anything and there was no creation event; or in other words, as figure of speech, the universe has predestine to be created...
It is a confusion with our language; we cannot express in our language properly what happen and "when" it happen. Point 1 relay on a linguistic confusion when it come to describing what is meant with "when" and "where".
Therefore point #1 is a Straw Man based on linguistic confusion.
That said, quantum mechanic has showed that stuff can be created from nothing...it happens all the time. The universe does not care whether or not we can grasp, understand, like or think it can do something or what rules we applies to it - it does it anyway.
For the rest, it is only the same old god of the gaps argument mixed with drivel; for instance computer are made of atoms and atoms are not Internet, so how could computer possible do what they do? They must be made of something more... like an Internet soul...
