The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

I would like to read up on such models that don't require and physics and are separate from the universe. Sounds more like metaphysical musings. Do you have a link?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
""
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant).

[...]

The success of quantum fluctuation theories have given way to metaphysical interpretations on the nature of reality and their potential role in the origin and structure of the universe:

   The fluctuations are a manifestation of the innate uncertainty on the quantum level[5]
""

My understanding is that quantum mechanics governs the physical structure of the universe. Who's theory should I look up so I can understand the concept better? 

 
Biases? You mean like science, observation, experience, intuition? These are the things that your "possibility" lacks.

My possibility does go against your intuition.... but so does so much stuff around us that we take for granted...
Human experience has a very narrow applicability, unless aided by some mechanism.
Observation and science have advanced since those premises of yours were considered likely. It would be good to revise some of them.

Actually, the cosmological arguments and the teleological argument have gained ground in the last 50 years thanks to science. Before a hundred years ago, you would have been hardpressed to find a scientist to say the universe had a beginning--which is a necessary feature of the notion of God. Second, the information we now have on the incredible fine tuning of the initial constants was little understood 50 years ago. Now even atheists must agree that the initial conditions are suspiciously exact and the odds of that being by chance are not even realistic. So, rather than "revise" them, they have been "revived" thanks to science.

---

I am not a platonist. I think all abstract object that are usually proposed as being real can ultimately be grounded in the mind of God. I think some sort of PSR is a characteristic of the mind of God and therefore an integral part of any reality the proceeds from God.

So, then, you're introducing circularity into your argument, no?

No. The argument only relies on a PSR existing--not theories on why it might exist. We can take a principle as an axiom without knowing why it applies to reality only that it conforms to reality.