Replies

No, this doesn't follow. Conceding for the sake of argument that there is a point before which science can say nothing, that just means we can know nothing about it. You can no more say that some "personal decision to create" was made, than you can talk about what came before.

When scientists stop short of that conclusion by papering it over with "meaningless phrases" or by "refusing to speculate", it seems that they are simply refusing to accept the facts and the most reasonable conclusion that come from them. This is a matter of will, not of mind. The evidence is objective; it's the disbelieving scientists who are not.

When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, there are only 2 possibilities; (1)either the universe has always existed, or (2)it had a beginning and a cause. All of astrophysics, physics, assert that the universe had a beginning, so it must have been caused by something else...something outside of itself. The fact that that conclusion leads to a theistic faith, is not based upon faith, but upon solid scientific analysis and evidence.

From science we know that 'that entitiy' is self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (no it is outside of time, space, matter), unimaginably powerful to create an entire universe out of nothing, supremely intelligent to design the universe with such incredible precision, and personal ( as I say, a decision was made to convert a state of nothingness to a time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make such a choice). These characteristics of First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God. But as I have provided in posts on this thread, those characteristics have been derived via science and logic. Those conclusions are drawn from critical thinking.

I will leave you with this one last question; "If there is no God, then why is there anything at all, rather than nothing? Why is there something rather than nothing?

"The evidence is objective; it's the disbelieving scientists who are not."

No. Once again for the sake of argument, the objective evidence could only say there was a "cause". You are trying to take "cause" and make it "god". That's not objective.

By the way, your two possibilities are limited. A begning and uncaused is also a possibility.

At the quantum level such seeming absurdities do happen.

"I will leave you with this one last question; "If there is no God, then why is there anything at all, rather than nothing? Why is there something rather than nothing?"

It's a good question. The ultimate question. But why say, "If there is no god" in front of it? This is the problem. You are automatically injecting "god" into this as if it were the default answer. Either you have a different answer, or god did it. That's not correct. Knowing that god did it requires just as much evidence as knowing any other possible answer.

Just postulating that god did it doesn't answer anything anyway. It just adds the extra step. If god did it, where did god come from?