>>> If you walk in a room and see a child sitting in the floor with a glass of milk spilled in front of them, isn't it reasonable to believe they knocked it over? Particularly, if there aren't any other people or animals around.
>>
>>Wrong comparison - in case of the Universe you assume you're seeing an entity which willed things into happening. I rather see it as "we don't see anyone around, so isn't it reasonable to believe that it had an internal cause"?
>
>
>No, the analogy is correct. I'm just saying creation demands a creator, just as an act requires an actor.

Again, you're assuming it's a creation, i.e. something that was designed and materialized by an act of a separate entity. Occam's razor says that new entities should not be introduced in the explanation if there's an explanation without them.

IOW, the analogy is correct within your coordinate set, where anything that happened has an initial creator. I say there's a viable explanation which doesn't require introduction of an external actor into the game.

I have no problem with the idea that we're here by accident. It may as well be the 9856th repetition of Big Bang - giB gnaB cycle, doesn't matter to me.