Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Over the Hill]

How is the appearance of virtual particle pairs and physical constants the same?

Just to give an example, in type II string compactifications, the coupling strengths of the fundamental forces are given by the inverse volume of the higher dimensional space on which we live. I don't think this can become negative out of principle. But I don't see why you would need that in.the first place.

---

You just restored my faith in humanity. 

That was easy

I did not say virtual particle pairs and physical constants were the same. I was using an analogy. The point is that virtual particle pairs are allowed to exist because they add up to zero. (I am simplifying the borrowed energy aspect but the end result is still no net gain or loss of energy.) If all possible universes exist there would be a balance of opposites adding up to no net imbalance. Assuming the ‘all possible universes’ scenario violates no conservation rules.

 
String theory in general is still hypothetical and the news from the LHC is not encouraging. But we are already very far out on the hypothetical limb, so what the hell!
 
A general feature of M-theory constituents is dualities. In S-duality, strong interactions in one theory are weak interactions of different particles in another. In T-duality, a small radius of a compactified dimension is equivalent to a large radius. Ultimately compactified dimensions are thought of as embodied in a Calabi-Yau manifold. (Non-techie readers, imagine hyperdimensional swiss cheese. Sort of.) The mirror symmetry idea has it that different Calabi-Yau manifolds can yield the same results. It is not results that necessarily appear in opposite forms, but the underlying reality. As with the flying pig analogy, not everything that can be imagined can exist.
 
BTW, imagine a universe in which the sign of mass-energy (non-virtual) is negative instead of positive. To a resident of such a universe could the difference be noticeable?