Of course he isn't, and that's a rather strange question for you to ask under the circumstances. Indeed. You seem to have a good understanding of the current state of macrocosmology. Neither you nor River fall back on the religionists' crutch of proud ignorance: "God did it and we're way too stupid to understand how or why." The description of the Big Bang that I find both simplest and most elegant postulates nothing except the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Like all of the laws of nature (including logic and arithmetic), these popped into existence at t=0 as attributes of the newly existing space-time continuum. The Second Law assures us that spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are possible, and there is no limit on their size. Starting from that point in space and time, the rest of the attributes of the universe sprang into existence at random. Since they just happened to result in the existence of a stable universe (how many other "times" has this happened but resulted in something that could not be sustained?), well then here we are. Ever since a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, entropy has been winning out and the universe is inexorably heading for its end. As I said above, because it can. For all we know, zillions of other universes have popped into existence and eventually collapsed back in on themselves. Their natural laws may be nothing at all like ours: no mass, no energy, 1+1 does not =2, and if all A's are B's and all B's are C's, there still might be a few A's that are not C's. As long as this scenario does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, it's just as good an explanation as any other. For matter and/or energy to suddenly appear out of nowhere that does not net to zero, then we're getting closer to the religious model. And of course its fatal flaw is, "Okay, then where did the god come from?"