Below is a quote from the Wikipedia article, "A Universe From Nothing" by Laurence Krauss:
"Samantha Nelson for The A.V. Club gave A Universe from Nothing a B grade, she writes "as bizarre as the spontaneous creation and destruction of particles might seem, Krauss argues that there’s scientific proof of the phenomenon, which makes it better than any creation myth." [ 3 ] Michael Brooks for New Scientist writes "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly." [ 4 ] David Albert for The New York Times criticizes the book for failing to live up to its title, and criticizes Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything"). [ 5 ]"
Redefining what "nothing" means in order to force a belief is quite a religious exercise. Something (redefining a term to fit their theology) which believers are accused of doing and have done. This is evidence that atheism, for some, is a belief that, like the belief in God, causes the holder to go to whatever lengths necessary to prove their belief even to stretching the truth and redefining commonly understood terms. Yes, "nothing" MUST be redefined because if it is not then the whole house of cards stands on...wait for it...Nothing!
As defined in the Wikipedia article, Vacuum State: "In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy."
Again, where did this "lowest possible energy" come from? Or are we talking eternal existence here? Really?! Interesting.