Hi, bb!
The answer to your question, why folks avoid the discussion about the origins of the universe, and of life itself, is a bit lengthy but fairly obvious, IMO.
So far as I know (and no one has ever offered a third alternative) there are only two options for the beginning of our universe.
Those are the only available options for the beginning of our universe. Obviously, each leads to a worldview quite opposed to the other. Each has it's problems, of course. Those who believe in a Creator have no widely accepted empirical evidence to support their view. On the other hand, those who believe in the alternative beginning of the universe have the impossible task of trying to show how all that we now know about that universe, and ourselves, came into being through a chain of accidental events. That is, how does purpose spring forth from purposelessness?
If anyone has a third alternative beginning, I would be quite interested in hearing about it.
That's not much of a problem if there is no purpose ;)
Not only that, they have no ability to give the Putative Creator a reason for Her Urge.
On the other hand, those who believe in the alternative beginning of the universe have the impossible task of trying to show how all that we now know about that universe, and ourselves, came into being through a chain of accidental events. That is, how does purpose spring forth from purposelessness?
You're assuming that purpose has "sprung forth". Identify this "purpose". If you cannot do so, your argument is fatally flawed.
Those of us that contend the Universe is Causeless don't make the mistake of then claiming it has Purpose. Purpose can only be the result of deliberate Cause, and hence anyone assuming a Purpose while postulating the absence of Cause is confused.
or
The universe came into existence through some as yet unidentified cataclysmic cosmic accident.
Those are the only available options for the beginning of our universe.