Most of the problems are caused by a lack of clarity about the difference between 'something' and 'nothing'. Many commentators on this problem are naive realists trying to protect their position.
The 'Nothing' of the mystics is the only one that makes any sense to me. At any rate, the idea that physics can solve metaphysical problems is absurd. What Hawking and his peers have to say is less important than what Rumi has to say. For an excellent discussion you could try The Mind of God by Paul Davies, a rare physicist who grasps that this is a metaphysical problem on which physics has nothing to say. He devotes a lot of time to the 'Something-Nothing' problem and concludes that the only possible solution is that offered by the mystics with their idea of 'Unity'.
Here is the Buddha, from the Surangama Sutra. For a proper reading we must assume psychology and ontology are the same study.
“Further, in his cultivation of samadhi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven.
i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate. If seekers of the truth call on him for instruction, he will declare,: ‘I now both live and die, both exist and do not, both increase and decrease,’ thus talking wildly to mislead them.
ii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he finds that each thought ceases to exist in a flash and concludes that they are non-existent. If people ask for instruction, his answer consists of the one word “Nothing,” beyond which he says nothing else.
iii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he sees the rise of his thoughts and concludes that they exist. If people ask for instruction, his answer will consist of the one word “Something,” beyond which he says nothing else.
iv. The practiser sees both existence and non-existence and finds that such states are so complicated that they confuse him. If people ask for instruction, he will say: “The existing comprises the non-existent but the non-existent does not comprise the existing,” is such a perfunctory manner as to prevent exhaustive enquiries.
By so discriminating he causes confusion and so falls into heresy which screens his Boddhi nature. The above pertains to the fifth state of heterodox discrimination (samskara) which postulates confused views about the undying.”
Sakyamuni Buddha - The Surangama Sutra
For an idea of the subtlety of these issues here is the old joker Chuang Tsu.
“Now I am going to tell you something. I don’t know what heading it comes under, and whether or not it is relevant here, but it must be relevant at some point. It is not anything new, but I would like to say it.
There is a beginning. There is no beginning of the beginning. There is no beginning of that no beginning of beginning. There is something. There is nothing. There is something before the beginning of something and nothing, and something before that. Suddenly there is something and nothing, I still don’t really know which is something and which nothing.
Now, I’ve just said something, but I don’t really know whether I’ve said anything or not.”
Chuang-Tsu - Inner Chapters
The trick would be to study carefully what you mean by 'something' and 'nothing' and to see that in a metaphysical context these are concepts. The topic is well beyond Hawkings, Stenger and other physicists who come at it as a problem in physics. But Paul Davies is well worth reading for an introduction to metaphysics and a good discussion of this issue.