What is wrong with this premise?

[robvalue]

Well, we are used to things having a start, but that doesn't mean it automatically applies to something we understand so little about such as the universe. Although it's a bit hard to wrap the brain around, I see no problem with an infinite past. And each universal state is a result of the previous one, acted upon by the universe's laws. No creator required, that's just how things are, for whatever reason. I find the idea that if you go back into the past far enough you get to the "beginning of time" to be less believable.

Of course, this is only one possible model and hasn't been demonstrated to be most likely true to my knowledge.

The problem with the "god" explanation is that it's not an explanation at all. God does exactly the thing that is usually complained about in his absence, he makes everything out of nothing. We have no details about how he did this, so we've just replaced "I don't know" with "god did it" and we're none the wiser. Especially as we now have to answer a load of extra questions about god, such as where did it come from, what exactly is it, how come it can make stuff out of nowhere... etc. We have no answers, because it's just a concept in our heads, and that doesn't mean it actually maps to reality in any way. The rational thing is to say, in my opinion, is that no one yet knows what happened, rather than filling the gap with an invented scenario.