I have my doubts about Quantum Mechanics, yes I know the math works. But I am reminded of the theory of epicycles when ever I read about it. The math worked quite well with theory of epicycles too.
"The theory of epicycles - the idea that celestial bodies moved in small circles as they traced larger orbits around the Earth - is arguably the most famous aspect of Greek astronomy. Although often scoffed at, it was actually very good at explaining the apparent movements of the Sun, Moon and planets through the sky, and it pretty much defined our view of the cosmos (see top three pics for various examples) until Kepler came up with the idea of elliptical orbits in the early 17th century AD."
I suspect we are lacking some fundamental knowledge of the nature of our Universe. Take gravity for example, we are very good at explaining its effects but we have no idea of what it is or how it bends space/time. Ergo I have every hard time believing correct any theory that creates something from absolutely nothing. When I said nothing I am not talking about a zero point energy system. I am refering to what existed before anything existed.
I will now take a look at your something from nothing reference, and thank you for providing it.
Just a word of caution: There is some confusion in the popular literature on the Internet about so-called "zero point energy" and fluctuations in the vacuum. Properly speaking, the words "zero point energy" should probably be banned, because in professional theoretical literature this has referred to the energy of the ground state of a system at absolute zero. The ground state is not vacuum; the ground state is an energy eigenstate. [The electronic ground state of a hydrogen atom, for example, is the energy eigenstate in which one electron has its minimum spherically symmetric average distance from the proton.] As such, a
ground state has real existence and real non-zero energy. The vacuum is something else. It arises when you apply an annihilation operator
to the ground state, destroying it. It does
not have definite energy, and does not contain real particles.
I don't understand why you'd be uncomfortable with a God whose mere Word -- the Laws of Universe -- would in itself be sufficient to cause the universe to create itself. God is not substantially removed from the process of creation by that modality. Indeed, it seems to me to identify the ongoing process of creation -- countless particles spring out of the vacuum and return to it in your own body every second, for example -- with the sustenance and guarantee of the Creator.