If anything, science is all about: "I have no idea what this is, but I have a model that seems to explain certain scenarios. Let's stick with it until someone more intelligent than us provides a better model". We may be "sure" about certain "laws" (e.g,, thermodynamics, speed of light, etc.)... but I think it's a mistake to be so absolute about them.
I like to imagine there's an anti-universe moving backwards in time from the start of the universe, and that's where all the unexplained missing baryonic antimatter ended up.
If you assume that 'nothing' is what cannot exist, then everything becomes a matter of scale and instrument sensitivity
Got proof? ...and isn't that the whole point of the discussion?
Since the Big Bang is the beginning of space and time, it doesn’t make sense to say it “came from” anything - not nothing, anything. Nothing could have “caused” it because causality depends on there being a before in which the cause could take place. Causality breaks down with the beginning of time and that causes us a lot of conceptual confusion.
Nothingness is the space that holds everything.
From there it can be argued that the universe began with the adjacent possible of nothing.