The belief that the universe came from nothing is, yes, just a ‘belief’. Followers of ‘scientism’1 may like to associate this with science, however since this 'theory' is not, and cannot be observed, and is not provable by scientific methods, this merely remains a 'theory'; and a very absurd one at that.
Absurd, because it is as much un-mathematical as unscientific (if the two domains can be separated). In any case, just as other metaphysical realities which science was not meant to dabble with, but has, and reached completely erroneous conclusions, this too is a 'belief' which is being rammed down the throats of the unwary. It is un-mathematical as it defies the basic equation 0 + 0 = 0. And that is regardless of how many zeros you add to the equation.
This may be seen to be akin to the very 'belief' of Religion and Faith which claims there is a superior Being who is the creator of this whole cosmos. I say ‘it may be seen to be’, as it is not similar at all, for Faith in God as the ultimate Creator of all existence is more credible than the belief that something (much less the entire universe) came out of nothing. If anything, the latter is a far greater leap of faith than the former.
To escape from this apparently unscientific and implausible proclamation, some like Professor Lawrence Krauss have tried to reinterpret the concept of ‘nothing’. Krauss, in his book, A Universe from Nothing - Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012), has tried unsuccessfully to redefine the meaning of ‘nothing’ to mean ‘something’ by presuming the existence of quantum fields that gave birth to the Big Bang and the resultant phenomena.
This model seemed so preposterous that it didn’t require a band of zealous proponents of Faith to refute, but was rebutted by men from his own tribe. The esteemed cosmologist George Ellis, for instance, referring to Krauss’s model, said, it "is not tested science" but "philosophical speculation".
No matter what quantum fields and particles people like Krauss may presume the existence of prior to the existence of the universe, the same question will inevitably present itself to that pre-existing matter, ‘What was the cause of that matter, as surely that matter had a beginning too’?
In fact, the notion 'something can come from nothing' has no precedent at all in human knowledge and experience, and is definitely not based on any scientific principle.
Everything has a framework and scope of operation, and so does (or should) science. Not remaining within the scope and remit of operation can not only lead to inaccuracies, but disastrous results! For instance, a computer can only give sound answers based on the sound information fed to it, and the delicate set of scales designed to weigh grams of gold cannot be used for weighing humans. And this is not limited to computers and scales, but applies across the board.
So let’s apply some basic logic here. There are only two possibilities at this point. Either the universe had a beginning, or it has been existing infinitely. To assume the universe is infinite is evidently illogical. This is because since our own existence is dependent on prior causes, we cannot have an infinite number of possible dependent causes, as this will lead to infinite regress, invalidating our own existence today.
To give an example, let’s assume a sniper who has to take permission from his senior before he is able to shoot. And his senior had to take permission from his senior, and so on for an infinite number of times. The question is, since we are talking of going back infinitely, will our sniper ever be able to shoot?
By the same token, since our existence depends on prior causes, in order for us to exist today, we cannot go back infinitely, for then we would not be here today.
And if we assume the universe had a beginning, we are faced with two more possibilities. Either we believe that it was created by an omniscient and intelligent force outside of this causal and temporal system, (and the intelligent design and fine-tuning of it supports this argument) or we believe that it sprang up from nothing. Since belief in the latter haunts us with the same question, we are compelled by logic to believe in the former.
The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.