"Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes"

The Cosmological Argument, i'd imagine, is pretty tough for atheists, naturalists and scientists to argue against. Your choices are to argue that an infinite regress is actually possible (a la David Hume). Or, you can try and show that something can come from nothing. Well, I guess you can also just try and convince us that we are nothing:

A lot of talk being made about 'Virtual Particles' and the redefining of the word 'nothing.' This article here talks about a recent publication made by physicist Lawrence Krauss. Upon an interview, he is prompted to talk about how a universe could have come from nothing:

The "long-held theological claim" that out of nothing nothing comes is "spurious."  This is because "modern science . . . has changed completely our conception of the very words 'something' and 'nothing.' " We now know that " ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy."  

First off, I'm not sure how 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a 'theological claim.' It surely seems that nothing would actually entail nothing, and this would not be something that is 'theological' but just simply logical. Spurious, as it is defined, is "Not being what it purports to be; false or fake." So not only is the statement not what it purports to be, but it's just false. Krauss goes on to say:

"The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of 'nothing'—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur."

Maverick Philosopher, whose blog it is, gives us more or less what this means in layman's terms:

"If I tell you that I met nobody on my hike this morning, it would be a bad joke were you to inquire, "And how is Nobody doing these days?"  'Nobody' is not the name of a person or the name of anything else. If you are confused by 'I met nobody on my hike,' then I will translate it for you: 'It is not the case that I met somebody on my hike.'  The same goes for 'nothing.'  It is not a name for something."

Doing the liberty of investigating these virtual particles, I found the following:

The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy") because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range".

So at most, a virtual particle is just borrowed energy, not from nothing, but from something else. Furthermore, they only exist for a temporary time, so unless 13.72 billion years counts as temporary, i'd say it's a stretch. 

And, even if we grant that prior to the universe there was this sea of "boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles," how does that advance us any further? Presumable this "brew" did not start, but had been going on eternally, which would inevitably create a universe, see it die, and then after some more time create another one, repeat. So basically even if we grant this, we're still looking at things popping in and out of existence eternally, and thus we violate our infinite regress.

So not only is a virtual particle not nothing, nor is it creation ex nihilo, but it gets us no closer towards defeating the KCA.