I’m confused too by your question.
I think I’m an atheist.
I don’t know how matter came into existence, whether by quantum fluctuations or it was already there. I don’t know a lot of things. There are “forces”, I understand, like gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong. Maybe there are others. But I think you mean forces that can will something to happen, sentient forces. No, I can’t fathom those kind of forces. Sorry.
You are muddying the waters with the phrase “completely on it’s [sic] own.”
But yes, the fundamental dynamic of reality certainly allows for the creation of something out of nothing. In fact, the concept of “nothing” is, in and of itself, nonsensical. Nothingness doesn’t exist, nothingness isn’t allowed.
Let’s forget for a moment about the Big Bang and expanding Universe (which are a -well founded - theory, but only a theory).
Let’s think of an Universe that’s going to last for ever in the present form. There is no big intuitive problem of grasping this.
So why is there an intuitive problem that it was in the present form in the past indefinite time.
Sorry, I was overwhelmed by all the posts and did have to get some work done today. So atheists, if I understand this correctly, DO believe that “god”, “force”, a “power”, whatever you want to call it, could POSSIBLY exist and be the cause of matter and our existence.
This is what I could never understand as I watched Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais and others attack organized religion (and rightfully so in my opinion).
I thought that they believed that this all came about all on its own with nothing causing it to happen.
Just like gravitation and that germs cause illness 
Finally you respond…and already you’re playing tired old religionist word games. Why don’t you tell us what you think the definition of “atheist” is, o.k.?
I think most of us would take issue with you conflating “force” or “power” and “god”. Obviously something resulted in the existence of the universe. That doesn’t mean you can call it “god”, unless you are defining the word out of existence.
You’re making this way harder for yourself. Pay attention to this again:
All that an atheist necessarily has in common with another is that they don’t believe in the existence of any gods (as commonly defined).
Therefore, some atheist can believe that a god could possibly exist and be the cause of matter and our existence, and others may not believe that it’s impossible. Forget about “force” or “power”; that’s not how God or god is defined. Everyone (AFAIK) believes that forces and power exist.
Some do, some don’t. It has nothing to do with defining one as an atheist.
'"Believe"is a bit of a fuzzy word… so I shall say I *accept *the probable existence of Hawking Radiation, which is pretty clearly a creation of something out of nothing (for pretty small values of something). 
When you say “force” or “power”, what do you mean? I’m assuming here that you’re not just meaning gravity, electromagnetic, etc.
Start what is meant by nothing in this vacuum. In the wiki it says:
It is not.
Hawking Radiation is the release of one of a pair of two Virtual Particles due to its partner being swallowed by the event horizon. The creation of the VP’s is ex nihilo, but Hawking Radiation is not.
Yeah, my cellphone hates gravitation so much, you wouldn’t believe. Sometimes it’s sick with it and I have to go to a witch doctor for making it good. But it slowly learns that as long as it’s quiet, it won’t have to face Big Bad Gravitation.
And Germs, well, also - but you must be careful. It may be a racist concept, the White Man tries to get money out of the Black African Sick-With-AIDS Man with his concepts.
Well, now, seriously. The oscillating universe was a reasonable possibility that depended on the amount of dark matter and energy (or the gravitational constant, if you will). That’s galactic yo-yo for ever.
But yes, I admit in the end. I was a bad boy. I used those words for rhetorical effect on a believer. They were supposed, somewhat sarcastically to resonate with “Evolution is only a theory”.
It looks like scientists are running into a problem similar to what religions are experiencing. People with a general science background are unable to personally confirm or deny the findings of a specialist.
I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. I certainly don’t have the laboratory or the funds to re-create the experiments a cosmologist conducts.
Picky, picky. OK, how about “Hawking Radiation is a *demonstration *of the creation of something out of nothing…”?
From what little I understand, yes, VPs appear from nothing but then annihilate, which is a pretty zero-sum form of creation – and perhaps not terribly compelling as a demonstration of something from nothing for the OP – whereas in the Hawking Radiation case the remaining particle isn’t V just P after its buddy gets eaten.
…no
Anybody with the proper training can replicate any scientific experiment published. There is no such “proper training” in religion. There are no “religious” specialists.
You could go to school, earn a Ph.D., and investigate them yourself.
You could not, however, gain mystical religious powers to probe the cosmos.
I disagree 
Not only are they created ex nihilo, they also influence the world around them.
Not really the same. Hawking’s hypothesis is testable. Any suitably knowledgeable and equipped cosmologist could in theory test it.
They wouldn’t have to know Hawking, or like him, or buy into any particular philosophy or brand of woo.
I think that the meaning word faith here is somewhat different from a Faith. Unless you’re in this field, you will not loose much sleep over this issue, and if you are, you will not accept the findings on faith, but on proof.
I did say “little I understand”. That’s pretty cool stuff.
No, you don’t. You could find out if his findings have passed peer review. If I was extremely sick, I would want to be taken to a hospital. I’m not an M.D. and I don’t need faith to do so; I have evidence that a hospital is the best place I know of to get medical care. If physicians said I need bypass surgery or I will almost certainly die, do I have to have faith in that finding to agree to the procedure because I don’t have the knowledge of a person that went to medical school? No, I have evidence that physicians are qualified in their field and their track record is better than that of witch doctors, faith healers, etc.
Can you stop hijacking this thread now? You’ve already been told by a moderator to do so.