the fact that the net energy of the universe may be zero is actually misleading with regard to what current inflation theory suggests. at the onset of inflation the inflation feild had a definite amount of positive energy - this is what i meant by 'initial energy'. this energy was then amplified as the inflation feild feeds of gravity to the enormous amount it contained post-inflation. since this energy flowed from a gravitational feild which then posessed negative energy, the total net energy in the universe could be thought of as zero. but for certain, for the model to work, the inflation feild needed to posess a certain definite amount of energy that could be amplified by feeding of gravity. calculations show that a tiny nugget on the order of 10-26 cm across and weighing a mere 20 pounds, filled with a uniform inflation feild, could through the ensuing inflation acquire enough energy to account for all we see in the universe today.
I dont know enough about the details of this theory to comment, but broadly speaking I can get imagine how net entropy, through inflation & contraction, could be zero overall. If that means I am debunking certain aspects of this theory in favour of one that calls for zero entropy then so be it.
If I am wrong, then I am still open to the idea of a creator(s), but it would still in no way suggest that the Abrahmic God, with human fingerprints all over him, is true.
with regards to your second point, whther the laws of physics that allowed this to occur popped into existence at the right time or whether they always existed is quite irrelevant - we still have to explain where they came from. we have yet to explain why there is an inflation feild or even the space it occupies, let alone why there is a law of gravity etc. which would allow the mechanism to work.
You are doing it again from within your creation bubble.
Why do you imply they came from somewhere, and then expect an answer for something that might never have happened? If we havent got any proof, then shouldnt you at least think this is one option?
i.e. properties interact with their environments in certain ways. Thats it. (And if they didnt, and if I have got Hawkings current premise right, then they wouldnt and we'd have nothing.)
Topic: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe