One of the long standing questions of philosophy is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and its metaphysical corollary "How did something come from nothing?"  Most contemporary physicists, those whose area of inquiry now furnishes most of the accepted answers to philosophical cosmology, maintain that the very question itself is flawed.  Why should nothing be default?  What if there was always something?  Then the question would be moot.  Time itself is now considered to have had a beginning.  Time is not infinite.

Indeed Stenger and Weinberg postulate a perspective to which I am coming around.  We may have a misperception that nothing equates with simplicity; nothing is not necessarily less complicated.  Nothing is the absence of something.  But obviously something does exist.  If it is allowed that something has always existed, then for nothing to exist would require a cause rather than represent the default position. Something is simpler.  Nothing is a mental construct based on and related to the concept of something.  Nothing loses substance. Nothing is more miraculous.