I tend to agree, but for entirely different reasons. The argument can be made that where there are only two possibilities, in this case a self-existent world or a created world, only one of the possibilities can be true, and the most reasonable explanation will be the acceptable one. Which, then, is the more likely or reasonable, a world that we agree exists, in which cause and effect is a known phenomenon, or a supposed external source that is assumed to have those features of our known world, upon which the theist must depend in order to argue for what is claimed? Both hypotheses can be denied without contradiction, and so neither of them is demonstrably true, but I contend that the former is the more reasonable. And while we cannot of course demonstrate that the universe is necessary, we know that it exists, but in the case of God we have no such assurance.
Heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. So the undeniable fact is that the universe exists as a sustaining power. Why then is it necessary to look for a further sustaining power? And why should the world be created? That last point raises a teleological question: Neither God nor or a self-existent world require an explanation or a reason for being, for it is reasonable to allow that if a thing answers to itself and has always existed then it just is, but if the world is created by God, a source external to the universe, there must be purpose in the creation and a reason for bringing it into being. So...what is it?
..Your god sounds like a kid playing with an ant farm.
