And I'm glad you weren't taken in by my insipid little "trick." Of course a theist doesn't believe there was ever nothing for the very reason you stated.
Doesn't science teach us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes state. This theory dictates that matter has always existed; my question is where did it come from, what form was it before the universe came to be?
Your question, "where did it come from," cannot apply to matter that can neither be created nor destroyed, because it would always have to have been. I am not sure most scientists actually hold the "conservation of matter or matter/energy" in just they way you have stated it any longer. I do, however. That also means, a "before the universe came to be," is something I do not believe has meaning, and it would require rigorous reasoning and evidence before I would accept it.
Human science can't answer these questions.
First, I am not sure what you mean by "human science." I was not aware there was any other kind.
I would be very surprised if science could answer these questions, since I do not regard the questions legitimate. Since time has meaning only in the context of a physical universe, what would "before" the universe existed mean? How can there be a "before" where there is no time?
Science is not always based on undeniable fact, they have faith in their beliefs...
Science is always based on undeniable fact. If you have an example of something that you think is "science" that is based on anything else, please let me know. (Only be sure it is really science, and not what someone claims is science. If you have questions about what science really is, see If They Believe That - Science, which is a critique of science, but has a very nice discussion of what genuine science is at the beginning. Notice the four objective tests of a true science.
As for scientists having, "faith in their beliefs," (which is a bit confusing since "faith" and "belief" have almost the same meaning), there is nothing objectionable about belief. Belief only means what one holds to be true. It is not believing something is true that is dangerous, but the basis or reason one believes something is true. If I believe oxygen supports combustion because I have studied chemistry and understand the nature of the chemical elements, compounds, valences, etc. that "belief" is a totally rational one. If I believe holding a stone in my hand and saying some "holy words" puts me in communication with spirits from another world because it says so in some book, that belief is superstition.
The difference is, the first belief can be experimentally tested, the second cannot. The difference is, the first belief is based on reason, the second is based on "simply accepting," called credulity.
And it is not "what" is believed that determines if one's beliefs are rational beliefs or superstitious beliefs, but how one comes to those beliefs. Some scientists believe some facts about science because they just believe whatever science says is true. That so-called scientific belief is as superstitious as anything any third world mystic believes. On the other hand, C.S. Lewis provides elegant rational arguments for his belief in God, which do not require any credulity at all. His belief in God is as rational as any scientists belief in the first law of thermodynamics.
I do not agree with Lewis, but I do not regard him a mystic.
He was there in the beginning when the heavens were created, He will be there at the end ...
Well, you may believe this. I would be interested in how you know there is a beginning and end. Most scientists believe there is a beginning (based on cosmological hypotheses, such as the big bang) and most believe there will be an end (most believe it is entropic), but these are all only hypotheses, and not actually science (since they are neither verifiable by repeatable experiment, nor can a test for falsifiability be devised).
Genuine science does not hold that the universe has a beginning or end. Philosophy frankly precludes it. Most theology actually denies it, at least that there is an end.
Hank