Perhaps there is something before the universe and nothing doesn't become a universe. Therefore, you've prepared a poor theorum.

Further, nothing is a state of affairs with something; I can only have nothing if initially I had something. Let's circle nothing, it means void of something.

Let's now ask, where did existence begin? I would not reduce the beginning era to nothing, but rather a fraction or a partial state. It wasn't fully something, it was half nothing, and an equal fraction away from becoming fully something.

It seems highly illogical so... Luck?

Let's now ask, where did existence begin? I would not reduce the beginning era to nothing, but rather a fraction or a partial state. — Varde

Theory of nothing and creation to my understanding say that something come to be out of nothing.
The key to understand how something come out of nothing is in that nothing itself is something.
Nothing is absence of everything, so that's something.

To anatomize something rather than nothing, you have to ask more detailed questions such as:
Why are there physical laws rather than no laws?
Why is there matter rather than matter and antimatter?
etc.

The more of such questions you analyze the easier it becomes to understand broader picture which is why is there something rather than nothing.

@Ash Abadear

Why is there something instead of nothing? — Ash Abadear

Complex question fallacy. What if all this which we call something is actually nothing?

:point: Śūnyatā

For everything there is somebody to which that thing is nothing.

Nxy = x is nothing to y

$(\forall x)(\exists y)(Nxy)$

Correct me if I'm wrong.