Additionally in so far as human logic is a social construction in it of itself there is no way to prove its truth without utilizing logic itself. Meaning any attempt to prove logic’s truth is fundamentally illogical, and circular. Meaning on some level logic is fundamentally based on the notion of belief, and core assumptions which may or may not be true.

Furthermore there is the field of Linguistics which basically says that our reality is defined by language rather than language being defined by reality. The reason being that our language is the fundamental building block of our thinking system, and it is what allows us to consider things in a rational or irrational sense. Our language works by grouping items together allowing us to discard their similarity and instead focus on their difference by further sub-grouping them until we reach individuality between objects. While this allows us to keep a distinct and separate name for each object all of these objects, idea, or descriptions fall within a hierarchy of larger descriptions. An example would be Transportation, Vehicle, Car, BMW, sports car, Z-4. While a Camery is also a type of sedan it would fall under a different branch of the hierarchy. This is what separates us from animals. There are humans who have been raised without language, and by the age of ten (when your thinking system is basically instilled) they will not be able to function as humans or with rationality. An interesting aspect of this is they will demand a separate name for everything. Take two shades of blue, Cyan, and Navy, while we will say these are blue, they will demand the individual name with no reference to the larger hierarchy. The point being that our thinking system via grouping is totally arbitrary. Furthermore this slips into Deridian linguistics which adds another aspect to the system that being that an object, or item derives its meaning from its opposite. An easy example of this is rich and poor. With our the poor the rich wouldn’t really be rich, its the distinction between them which gives the wealthy their trait of being wealthy. Light and dark is also an even better example of this, because it makes it really easy to see what Deridda’s point was. That one side of the relationship dominates over the other. Light prevails over darkness, rich over poor, life over death; one is the status quo or absence while the other is the presence or the non-normality. My whole point with this is that this need for something to exist there must have been a nothing is a completely socially constructed, and possibly untrue assumption which is inherent to our thinking system. While we will never be able to literally comprehend or understand a system unlike it, just know that does not have to be the case, that conclusion is purely based on our language defined reality. Going by your assumptions though….

I would like to finally touch on the notion of a God, and the proposition of your energy. Theoretically they are one in the same, they only vary in presentation, and name. If the universe was born out of your energy that energy would be the god-figure which is referred to. So philosophically the notion of god is not really dis-proven by your theory, it is in fact proven to some degree. Descartes had his ontological proof for gods existence, I am not sure if you have read it or not, basically it says something can not be produced from nothing, therefore in order to explain this something which we exist in, there is either really nothing and this is but an illusion; or there is a god which created this universe. That God is not necessarily some ration being, or understandable entity, but more so simply the source of the universe itself. That is at least the extent to which Descartes’ proof addressed. While yes there is no way to prove which religion is necessarily true, or which manifestation of god is the true God; there was undoubtedly as you said at one point nothing, and now there is something. The source of that shift be it energy, or a supreme being, that is what we have labeled God.