I am no physicist, but I am fairly well acquainted with modern particle physics. And as I have explained already many times, we do not need, nor can we use physics, to establish a proper opinion on god. So many physicists and physics enthusiasts know not when they leave what can be possibly known and begin to violate more basic epistemological laws that their science and process of verification rely upon. No doubt, current quantum theory is very good at predicting certain things probabilistically. But so was Ptolemy's model of the cosmos more predictive relative to the clearly more correct model put forth by Copernicus. Appearing, as random, or able to act at a distance, is very different than actually doing so or being able to explain it. Quantum uncertainty is a demonstration of the current limit of our ability to perceive. Be patient. We'll fully integrate the quantum level logically, both hierarchically, by describing it as a group of smaller things or currently hidden variables and as a part of what we know to be larger things, as well as contextually without logical contradiction into an objective knowledge base. Or we will not breach this current limit. But we will never prove true randomness or god. We, popular academic theoretical physicists and the media, should be more careful about calling what is at the very limits of our ability to perceive it knowledge, especially when it contradicts, not just other related knowledge, but what makes knowledge possible. There is one reality. Granted, it looks like this is just one local expansion, of many, with these particular physical constants, but no where in existence does anything deserving of the name god exist.
God can have an identity. The same way the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster can. It is just invalid and contradictory or metaphorical. Faith is the absence of reason as god is the absence of noncontradictory concrete identity (which a thing needs to exist). What god that you know of possibly or can imagine has a valid identity that is not made up of contradiction or metaphor, that is not also simply just something else logical that we already have a name for, like 'alien'? To exist, a thing must have an identity in reality. If it does not interface with reality, then it does not exist, in reality. And there is nothing outside of reality. There is nothing outside of everything that exists. To exist, a thing must be some things and not others, lest it would have no meaning or substance to be validly called existent. It is impossible for a leaf to melt and freeze at the same time. Or a plant to grow backwards. Or to be all red or all green at the same time. These cannot happen because they violate the law of identity. If contradictions were able to manifest, our system of how we turn subjective perceptions into objective concepts and how we verify learned concepts by integrating them into a knowledge-base could not work.
It is a misunderstanding to think that our government collapsing is the first step towards an actually free society. Not voting will maintain the status quo. We will vasselate between varying degrees of capitalism and socialism or collapse. Neither of these options is favorable. I think if the federal government collapses, not one state in the union will become more free. The population will not immediately embrace individual rights. We'll go back to a modified capitalism or worse. The idea that people will recognize the true cause of the collapse and then embrace freedom, anarchy or a foundation of libertarianism is laughable. There is not a significant number of people that can, with force or reason, keep a tyrannical socialistic group from taking control. Awareness of the moral significance of individualism and the nonaggression principle are increasing yes, but not as fast as the birth rate of the ignorant masses. If we are to have a free society, imo, it must come from within, step by step. Elect Ron Paul. End the Fed, stop spending, first in foreign aid, then militarism, then least significant special interest groups, then eventually healthcare and welfare. Abolish forced taxation. And then, once we have the ideas of less government taking hold, we can discuss abolishing the state completely, but not until we have a more moral educated populace. In this condition, anarchy would not result in freedom, we must first have an agreed upon moral premise of individuality and nonaggression before any state is abolished. Until then, the best course is to vote into office people who will incrementally decrease the size of government. Not voting while being a libertarian, anarchist or anarchocapitalist, is a waste. All of you nonvoters really do make what I consider a travesty.
Lawrence Krauss states that we have isolated a section of empty space and within this 'empty' space, particles pop in and out of existence, seemingly from 'nothing'. This cannot be extended to the entire universe came out of nothing. An artificial 'empty' space is still curved space-time. What curves it? Matter and energy elsewhere in the universe. He is the cosmologist/physicist and states this theory of something from nothing while simultaneously omitting the fact that any 'empty' space in this universe must also be curved, i.e., have gravitons, fundamental strings, or whatever transmits this curvature. Just because we cannot perceive what these particles come from does not mean that they come from nothing. That, again, makes no sense. A true universal nothingness would not have any characteristic, including curvature, else it would not be nothing.