@ Dandy
"...Doesn't "came from" desribe a place in space/time?..."
That's exactly my point. I cannot see how something 'comes from' complete nothingness. To me the only logical explanation is a loop. That satisfies the no beginning and no end concept, and preserves the constituents of the universe, either in the way of matter, or in the way of energy. But when I am presented with complex theories and conjecture about how things suddenly developed from a singularity or a liquorice stick (whose existence itself is not scrutinized) then it seems like a way of spliting up a question so that the focus is how the liquorice stick evolved/developed/changed into what we see today, rather than questioning how you can get something out of nothing.
More about the plus and minus and resultant of zero:
@ Blobzie
If we imagine for a moment that you are satisfied with a mathematical zero equating to 'nothing' I would like to know if there is any evidence that the entire universe and matter and energy from which it is composed is NOT curently in fact a resultant of zero. In other words, how do we know that all the negatives added to all the postives, do not equal a big fat zero right now?
Because if we consider that they do, then you and I do not really exist, because we are 'nothing' when all the sums are totalled.
If we consider that the resultant is not zero, then where did the excess material/energy come from that gives us the universe as we see it? It may as well be considered on its own, without a fancy attempt to rationalise a certain number of pluses and minuses beforehand.
Of course, another thing that bothers me is the convenience of saying that there is an equal amount of pluses and minuses, and that the sum of these is nothing. It is convenient because it can't be proved. After all, it would be really inconvenient if it was proved, because that would kill the theory itself, as the proof would rely on identification of either the minus or the plus components that contribute to the resultant of zero. And these components would prove the 'lack of' nothing.
It's kind of like a jar, 'filled' with a vaccuum. I can assert that there are 12 blue goblins and 12 yellow pixies in the jar, but we can't see them (in fact they aren't there, because they cancel each other out). Only by some other (as yet unexplained force) can you suddenly have 13 goblins, which renders the contents of the jar 'something'.
Of course there is the nagging problem of why such a force, necessarily being external to the jar, was not counted as part of the universe in the first place. The link to Rubak's site that I provided earlier gives a very sound and logical argument why the universe can't be thought of as a compartmentalised entity such as an expanding balloon (or jar of goblins or what-have-you).
