When Science comes up with a way to explain something from nothing (the UC) you can say that arguing that is evidence of God is unwarranted.
Since the Scientific realm cannot, in fact dictates without any question that something from nothing CAN NEVER OCCUR, the very nature of the UC.. which logically must exist is indeed only explained by God.
> When Science comes up with a way to explain something from nothing (the UC) you can say that arguing that is evidence of God is unwarranted.
Irrelevant. What you have done is taken a mystery 9where did the Universe coem from) and tacked on a simplistic answer: a god did it. Not just any god, not some god we don;t know anything about, but one very specific God. Well, to go with the oft-used Creationist analogy of the lone watch found in a desert... ok, you can reliably state that *someone* put it there, but you have *no* data on who that was, why or how they did it. Did the watch fall from an airplane? Did some lost soul, driven mad by the sun, leave it there as an offering to the Sun Gods?
Similarly, assume for the sake of arguement that some intelligent force created the universe. How do you know who or why? You have a religious text that gives *one* hypothesis as to who and why, but it is no more valid logically than any other religious text. And it remains entirely possible that said universe-creater might well be some being wholly beyond your understanding; some cosmic child, making a bauble; some cosmic lunatic, scribblign away in his 11-D notebook; or even a *human*, far in the future, figures out how to make a universe in a jar, and he winds up makign *this* universe.
Do I believe any of these? No. But they are no *less* valid than the "I know exactly which God did it, and here's his manual and secret handshake" approach.