It's clear this universe had a beginning and its origins cannot be explained by those living inside it. To me placing faith that this universe came from another universe, where a different set of physics operate, and wherein the origins -can- be explained, makes more sense than an eternal God. There is absolutely no difference between declaring "God just was, He's eternal" and "matter just was, it's eternal".
I believe I had made the point that both another (and the theory usually posits
many other) universe, and a divine fiat were equally unscientific (in the Popperian sense).
I would still suggest, that having left the realm of science, theism gains the advantage over unscientific naturalism when Occam's razor is applied: positing that the ground-of-all-being is person-like enough to earn the traditional name God and to be attributed a will seems to 'multiply entities' less than positing another universe to explain ours (and another to explain it . . . ).