Bede Rundle has an interesting book out called “Why there is something rather than nothing”
Rundle argues for the view that there cannot be nothing, either at some point in the past, or at some point in the future. Rundle is not alone in making this sort of claim but he does give some arguments for it rather than merely asserting it as obvious and the conclusion is tentatively held. This is because it is based on the considerations of arguments that might in principle be mistaken.
These arguments that nothing and we are talking about absolute nothing here cannot be conceived of stem from Kantian considerations about the conditions of possibility for conceiving objects or events involving space/time. We can readily conceive of particular objects going out of existence, like marbles in a box, but it is more difficult if not impossible to conceive of the setting for all the objects to go out of existence. We may imagine all the planets to go out of existence but when we do this we tend to imagine empty space rather than absolute nothingness.
Rundle thinks that our attempting to conceive of total non-existence always leaves us “with something, if only a setting from which we envisage everything having departed, a void which we confront and find empty…”
Once this is granted the argument assumes that what we cannot conceive of delimits what is genuinely possible and so nothing is not genuinely possible because it is inconceivable.
Then he claims that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” assumes a false possibility i.e., that nothing is possible.
Hence Rundle explains why there is something rather than nothing instead. Something was more likely than nothing. There is a link to him on conversation discussing his work below