“That is acceptable for religion. It doesn’t work with science.” [excerpt]
Ah, a card trick!
The question I was replying to was
“What’s your SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the origin of the creator?”
First you ask about the scientific origin of an entity that is outside of science, then you say that my response is fine for religion but not science.
Classic bait-n-switch.
Science is built on top of philosophy and your question about 'the origin of the creator' is a philosophical question.
My statement that your assumption of a beginning was false, is perfectly relevant to your question.
Speaking of, as you put it, 'scientific theory' concerning a creator, there is no such thing, nor will there every be.
A scientific theory represents something that is repeatably testable, and, among other things, predict a result or outcome.
A discussion about something that can neither be tested nor observed, is purely philosophical.
Or, as some would say,
theoretical, but in the colloquial sense.