If this issue interests you particularly I want to stress that it seems to me that different people can put different emphasis on it. For someone who comes from a very secular background, or for whatever reason (age maybe) are fully convinced that the universe is not supernatural, then that question can kind of recede into the background. For me however, I agree with what appears to be the ancient Epicurean decision to put the non-creatability of the universe front and center in the discussion. There is the practical side of not wanting to leave yourself open for doubt to creep in, but I think the issue is much deeper than that. No matter what level science reaches there is always going to be an unknown next step, and it's important to decide how to deal with the unknown. Do you leave open the possibility that MAYBE if you dig down deep enough you stop finding turtles and find "god", or do you assess the logical procedure itself and say that you are simply NEVER going to accept speculation without some form of reliable evidence to back it up.
That's where Epicurean emphasis on reasoning being subservient to the senses comes in. I am convinced if you start training people young enough that "speculation without evidence is simply stupid" that most people would develop a resistance to most of the harmful effects of worrying about life after death and whether a god created and controls the universe. If those issues aren't a concern (and I think for many educated people today that is the case) then nothing from nothing/nothing to nothing can remain just another scientific theorem that we accept as a matter of course. But while the viruses of religion and destructive nihilism remain active, "nothing from nothing / nothing to nothing" can take on a force of immediate and even emotional urgency that really has no substitute. At least, that's the way I view it personally, not just as a scientific observation, but as the very heart of the philosophy without which all the rest would be useless arbitrary assertions.
