Even if it is ultimately established that there is no God, yet that fact alone will not automatically make the current theory for the origin of the universe from nothing a better theory than before.
At least three points can be raised against this theory.
First of all it says that as the total energy of the present universe has been found to be zero, so the entire universe can come from nothing, no god being needed. But I have already shown that this total energy will also be zero if the universe has originated from something, or even if it has been created by some supernatural agent.1,2 That means zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing. So on the basis of which factor have they concluded that the universe has originated from nothing?
Secondly it claims that everything has originated from nothing. Thus it solves one problem. But at the same time it creates some new problems, because now it will have to provide an explanation as to how the totality of everything always remains nothing, which explanation it fails to provide. It does not explain how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.3
Thirdly it assumes that quantum laws were already there, but it does not explain whence originated those quantum laws, or in which container were those laws when there was no space-time. One commentator in one YouTube presentation has written very nicely about this problem.4 So I think everyone should read what he has written on this. He has written that in Krauss' hypothesis it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that will include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin will ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.
Actually this origin theory shows that modern day science has gone totally bankrupt. That is why it cannot produce anything better than this half-baked theory that cannot solve one single problem without at the same time creating more problems that it cannot solve. It also shows one more thing. It shows that modern day intelligentsia has sunk so low that it can remain satisfied with such a half-baked theory.
A theory that cannot solve one problem without creating another problem that it cannot solve cannot be called a good theory at all. Even as a hypothesis it is a very bad hypothesis indeed.
So I think there is ample reason to doubt as to whether this is the correct theory at all for the origin of the universe. There must be some other good theory that will not only be able to explain the origin of the universe, but will also be able to answer all the other questions that the theory might generate. It might also be the case that we will ultimately find that the universe has not originated from nothing at all, but from some other thing.
Newton’s theory of gravity was ultimately replaced by Einstein’s theory of gravity because Newton’s theory could not correctly explain the precession of the orbital path of mercury. Calculations made by Newton’s laws gave the magnitude of precession shorter by about 43 seconds of arc per century from the observed magnitude. Einstein’s theory of gravity was able to account for this discrepancy, by attributing it to the curvature of space around the sun.5
In a similar way it is expected that the current theory for the origin of the universe will be replaced by some other theory that will be able to answer that which current theory cannot answer e.g. the question as to how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.