Isn't that the whole point of the argument made in the article you posted? Since the universe must have come from something, then there is something EXCEPT for that first "something" which by definition didn't come from something but just is. So the whole question of whether something can come from nothing is dodged by claiming the first something just always existed. Which then leads to another possibility. If one "something" can just exist with out cause, then why can't other "somethings"?

Again the argument falls apart when applied to itself.

".. thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe."