nothing

In 2010, scientist Lawrence M. Krauss wrote an article1 in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that since the total amount of energy in our current universe is zero, it follows that the universe originated from nothing. The gist of his argument was this: Let us assume that the universe actually arose from nothing. (Here it is the so-called nothing of scientists, not the nothing of philosophers.) Then the total energy of the universe must be zero, because everything here started from nothing. Amazingly, scientists have also found that the total energy in the present universe is zero.

Once scientists have come to the conclusion that space-time is not fundamental, but emergent, now many things will change in physics and cosmology. One such change is that cosmologists can no longer hold that the universe has originated from nothing.

In one YouTube comment thread I have written the following to a theist:

Atheists very frequently ask this question: If God created everything then who created God? If one answers their question by saying that God needs no creation, then their usual reply would be that it is some sort of special pleading, because if everything needs creation, then why not God?

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.

We are here on earth, because God needs us.

The question 'Why are we here on earth?' can be answered in two steps:
1) First of all we will have to know as to whether there is any God or not;
2) If we can somehow come to know that there is a God, then we can further ask the question as to why he created the universe.

When we will have the answer to this question, we will also come to know as to why the universe exists, why we exist, or why we are here.

The above two have already been answered here1 and here2 respectively.