I understand that you claim you don't think a universe from nothing because there is not enough evidence, but I also understand that you do not rule out the possibility, is my understanding correct?
I don't rule out anything, until there are more evidences can be use against any cosmology, OR that cosmology continue to have absence of evidences.
For instance, the Steady State (SS) model, a cosmology developed by Fred Hoyle in 1948, as competing theory against the Big Bang model.
This model (SS) was debunked in 1964, with the discovery of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson using radio telescope.
CMBR was however first predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, which started in the Recombination epoch, 377,000 years after the Big Bang. The RC is the result of stable atoms formed the first time, when electrons bonded with ionised hydrogen and ionised helium. This bonding caused photons (or CMBR) to decouple.
Alpher with Russian George Gamow had predicted in 1948, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), which is a different and earlier epoch than the Recombination epoch. This epoch formed the ionised matters of hydrogen and helium, with nuclei forming cores protons and neutrons (note that, hydrogen has one proton in the nucleus, and no neutron, while helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons). In another word the fusion of nucleus and protons (and neutrons) during the early universe, before the stars formed.
Eventually, coalesce of stable atoms, mostly hydrogen atoms, gravity from the combined masses, which caused the mass reached critical mass that triggered nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom. All this caused the birth of a star.
The Big Bang include formations of particles into atoms, include knowing the properties in particle physics.
The BBN and RE in 1948 were just the first next step and biggest contribution to Georges Lemaître's 1927 expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang), when he published his paper, Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.
The 3rd step or 3rd major contribution to the Big Bang, was ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), developed during the late 1990s.
ΛCDM Is considered as the current standard model to the Big Bang, that explained why the universe is currently accelerating in its expansion: the presence of dark matters and dark energy.
The recent WMAP and Planck missions indicated the dark matter and dark energy, now and during the decoupling of CMBR during the Recombination epoch. ΛCDM covered and explained what earlier BB physicists of 1920s and 1948 couldn't explain.
So far, the evidences point to the Big Bang being the correct and verified model to physical cosmology...so far.
What you need to understand that the Big Bang theory is still a young theory, and a theory "in progress" or "ongoing" theory. And it will continue to being contributed as long as there are evidences to be discovered.
It took science 16 years (from 1948 to 1964) to actually discovering CMBR. And it took another 37 and more years to get the new images of CMBR from WMAP and Planck space probe.
What evidences do you have for the eternal universe?
Our technology cannot see beyond the CMBR and Recombination epoch, so we don't have observable evidences to the universe going on indefinite.
And the same limitations that prevent us seeing further in the past for eternal universe, also prevents science exploring further, if the universe formed from nothing.
I won't rule out the universe being eternal, but I don't have to accept your claim, now. Likewise, I am treating the whole nothingness model in the same manner - not accepting, but not ruling out.
And we certainly have no evidences for the incoherent rubbish Thief is sprouting about "spirit first". This, I have already ruled out.
What I find troubling is that you are pressuring me to accept something without evidences.
Until you can present the science and more importantly the evidences to back up your eternal universe, I don't have to accept anything to be true, based on your words alone.
You keep nagging at Christine about not having evidences, and you have yet to present any yourself.