A 'creator' - the case against

The argument in favour of a creator (god) of the universe is based on the exactness of certain measured parameters. The formulation of the components of the hydrogen atom to the disposition of the planet earth in a fairly  routine solar system, according to a 'goldilocks' prescription. The perfect detail of the whole, according to adherents of the idea, leads them to believe that the universe was 'created' by a creator (god).
The Davies Hypothesis, whilst refraining from asking who or what created the 'creator, maintains that unless certain parameters are met, the universe would not have been viable and therefore would have not been created in the first place. You do not need a 'creator' to adopt the only option available.
The key to understanding this argument is accepting that the universe emerged from the absolute nothingness I call the pleroma. This is the best, perhaps the only way one can avoid the problems of infinite regression such as 'who created the creator'.
The absolute nothingness of the pleroma can be thought of as zero and expressed according to the following formula:

P ~ f [ x² + (ix)²] = 0  where ‘i’ is the square root of minus one.

or more strictly: P ~ f [ (±x)² + (±ix)²] = 0
(Note the coefficients of the terms: +1. -1, +i, -i )
Here we have nothing composed of something, two seemingly positive terms cancelling each other out. But how do we get a universe? the 'x' could refer to anything; a cabbage. But what if it refers to the very ingredients and recipe for making a viable (dual) universe?

If the recipe, x, doesn't comply with the requirements to form a viable universe then the universe doesn't come into being. No creator required other than the natural, uncreated order of numbers.

Details are to be found in my book: Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions.