"That's not nothing"

[Mister Agenda]

You're missing some crucial points. If physics is going to redefine nothing to actually be something, then it's an obvious equivocation fallacy to say that physics shows that the universe came from "nothing" when an apologist asks why anything exists. The apologist is obviously using "nothing" in a way the physicist isn't. This is why people like Krauss are totally full of shit on this topic.

Despite carefully explaining exactly what he means: there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, at the closest we can get to it, there is still quantum foam.

You're misunderstanding Craig. He's saying it's a logical contradiction to say something can come from nothing (at least without a cause) because "nothing" has no properties, which means it has no potentiality for creation.

'No potentiality for creation' is a property, and an awfully convenient one for Craig to apply to nothingness, given that he wants to conclude that 'nothing can come from nothing'.

That we say things possess "positive" and "negative" properties is not a real thing, in the sense that we could just as easily say that protons possess a negative electrical charge, while electrons possess a positive charge.

That is true. It is also true that if the energy balance of the universe ('negative' energy plus 'positive' energy) is not exactly zero, it is very, very, close to zero.