Title lifted from MC Hawking

When doing my debatey thing, I often come across the “Something can’t come from nothing” argument against Big Bang theory.  Here’s a few reasons it’s illogical:

1. Big Bang describes the events that occurred immediately after universal formation: planck, Unified fields, inflation, electroweak, quark, hadron, lepton, photon, and recombination.  Prior to that - the first Planck time after universal formation was kicked off, we don’t know anything - can’t know anything - because it occurred outside observable reference (that is, we can only derive the universe in reverse to a point; beyond that point, the laws of physics don’t work and the math fails).  So the first failure is in addressing that they think we’re talking about ultimate universal origin, rather than speaking about the universe’s history after that.  (sort of like telling one life story, but omitting the conception)
2. The arguer is assuming that there was ‘nothing’ before the events described by Big Bang.  As pointed out by (1), this isn’t necessarily true - is probably not true - because, as said, we don’t know the state of the universal system before the start of inflation.  If you’re going to assert that something can’t come from nothing, the only thing to say for it is that, obviously, something was there.  Don’t know what, but you asserted it.  Can be God if you like, but you, like me, would have to figure out what that something is made of - God included.
3. Generally, it’s followed up or used in support of, “so the only alternative is God.”  Leaving aside the false dichotomy here, we’re still claiming a something from nothing scenario: God speaking it into existence doesn’t change the fact that it’s still something from nothing - and reiterates the question: why doesn’t anything spring from nothing today?
4. It’s kind of fallacy that nothing can spring from nothing: virtual particle pairs spring from vacuum all the time, always in particle-antiparticle pairs.  I’m not a physicist, so I can’t really speak as to the application of this to universal formation, but I do find it interesting.  (I can say, however, that in Zero Point Energy, which is what describes this phenominon, the VPP’s are ‘borrowing’ energy from the baseline).