It's not absurd. It's merely counter-intuitive . . . just like every other part of quantum mechanics.
I don't mean "absurd" in a way that deprecates the concept. I know that our intuition is suited for the environment we evolved in and it can't be expected to hold true for all environments. I just mean "absurd" in that, as you said, it's counter-intuitive and does not seem satisfying.
And it certainly doesn't give you license to put forth the arguement, "well this one aspect of reality seems absurd to me - so I can postulate whatever absurd thing I like."
I think you misunderstood me. I was intending to say that I do not believe there is yet enough evidence that the universe developed that way, without the prompting of a creator, and not enough knowledge to judge the likelihood of a creator existing outside this universe. I do not assert that a creator is equally likely, but only that we can't judge the relative likelihood, thus I stated that we might as well call it 50/50. This was not intended as a serious estimation of chance, as I thought I made clear at the time.
Starting out with an all powerful creator is NOT the same as a finite intelligence that has slowly formed over billions of years of evolution. Human intelligence has come about by a naturalistic process.
I never said that a creator formed instantly or that he didn't evolve.
There is no such method for Gods to come into existence.
Now who's postulating?