For starters, a quantum vacuum is something, not nothing, and exists in spacetime. So you still are at ground zero for identifying the UPE that initiated the universe.
Also, it is not logical to think that science will come up with an answer for the universe, since scientific evidence is based on testing models, and we will never be able to test anything outside of spacetime.
My argument that theism is the logical alternative to atheism:
STRONG ATHEISM - Someone stating, “There is no god” makes themselves God, since somehow they know everything.
Admits that God may exist, but there is no evidence for or against God at the moment. But that’s not really their argument. What they are saying (or should properly say) is that there is evidence for something, but what exactly that, “something” is undefined. There are 3 alternatives:
- A UPE (unidentified physical entity)
- Ontological Nothingness
Almost nobody attributes the universe to #3, so you have God or a UPE, which is usually either the multiverse or the figment of an anti-theist physicist’s imagination.
But herein lies the rub. This debate is not between 2 Intel chips analyzing data in the night. Every human alive knows that the concept of God entails much more than creating the physical universe. In addition to that God gives meaning and purpose to life and has answers to the question of why we are here. In the major monotheistic faiths life here, with the spiritual mixed with the physical, leads to the possibility of eternal life. Along with those notions of God, most people actually sense the spiritual, of eternity and of purpose and meaning to their lives that leads to a life after this physical life.
So the weak atheist bases their possible eternal destiny on something that, “science” will never determine, something you admit (or almost admit, though you should logically fully admit it). And merely considering the multiverse or a UPE naturally leads to the question, “where did they come from?”.
Therefore the agnostic/weak atheist position is truly weak. It states that there is evidence that could be attributed to a god, but there are other alternatives as well and we’ll just have to wait. But it has been demonstrated that logically we will never have scientific answers. And any theoretical answers will have to have an accounting, because experience in this existence tells us that. The only logical answer to this existence is God.
In the end you’re saying that there could be a god, but there are other alternatives. God is the most logical of the alternatives for existence, because He is the best explanation for the nature of this existence.