Cube

I think this needs qualifying? ...

2. Science has no natural explanation for the origin of the physical laws and constants that govern our universe.

The origin of the physical laws and constants of our Cosmos isn't something that can be observed or measured and so is more properly within the realm of metaphysics?

But what theoretical research into the subject might throw up in the future is a matter of speculation.

Perhaps it's better phrased as science has no explanation for why they exist and are the way that they are

Right now, it's above everyone's pay grade

   It always will be

Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not in our lifetime though

What can't yet be asserted is that the underlying state from which our Universe emerged, with the natural laws that govern it, is beyond any natural, physical explanation.

This is one of those questions about which we have to be content with we don't know, for now at least.

What we do know is that like the origin of life, there is no naturalistic solution to the problem on the immediate horizon. Not even a hint of one. The governing of the physical universe by what amounts to NON-physical, abstract formalisms is problematic for materialism.  It's not absolute proof of anything. But it's a valid criticism nonetheless. Progress in discussions like this can only be made if people on both sides are willing to recognize not only the weaknesses in views they oppose, but also in views that they hold. It's a fair point to acknowledge.

These are nice statements of faith; I have no problem with them as they are simply opinions. I asked for something a little more definitive than there is no other observational evidence, which is saying we got nothing other than we think because we think it. If that is the totality of it, we may as well say God did it because we don't know; I was hoping for something more.

There isn't even a myth about how it all started using the material universe alone to come up with some explanation. If you got X, we could get Y from X, but we cannot say that you get X even if you don't have X or anything else, which is the totality of what you currently have.

Evolution is a process, one that supposes a great deal, and much of it has to do with how all of the information directing life alters to allow for other things to evolve; we see that in how we program computer code advancing as we go, we don't see that in mindless processes that have nothing directing them into ever-improving complex functions.

Abiogenesis and for that matter, the genesis of all things through material means escapes us; there is no reasonable cause, not even a hint of possibilities that don't go to some other worldly explanation, a supernatural cause. A multiverse makes for decent Marvel comic stories, Star Gate, or the list of science fiction goes on and on.

No, TruthMuse you're mistaken. They are not statements of faith, but honest, accurate statements about the current state of our knowledge. For example:

7. We have no geological evidence that there has ever been a global flood at any time during the history of the Earth. That's a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact, then all you need do is produce sufficient evidence of said global flood. 

Same with 3, 4 & 6 on the Big Bang, age of the Earth and universe, and biological evolution. They are currently the best explanations of the observational evidence. If you disagree, then all you need do is provide a better explanation.

But if history is any indication, you will now retreat behind a fog of obscurism about how we supposedly can't be sure of anything and how it's all just assumptions and different interpretations of the same data...But you never offer up and defend a better explanation of your own. Instead, you just take pot shots from the sidelines, without ever contributing a better explanation.

If you're so sure these other ideas are wrong, then you need to offer up something better and defend it. That's literally how science works. It abhors a vacuum. It doesn't matter how many pot shots you take. Science doesn't simply jettison explanations--even if there's problems with the explanation--if there's no replacement explanation to fill the void.  It will stick with the best explanation available, even if it has problems and doesn't explain everything, until something better comes along. So, offer up something better.

A statement of faith is different than a statement about our current knowledge; how? Our current state of knowledge is what we believe is true until we know it isn't, nothing more or less. Rest this I don't have time to respond to now.

Yep, just as I predicted. Retreat behind the smokescreen. Never offer and defend a better explanation.  And that is why your arguments will never convince, because they never offer something better as a replacement.

I simply pointed out that what you said is simply a statement of faith, it is what you think is true according to all you know and accept as true. The rest has to wait until I have more time.

And I remember it to respond. 😀

Out of curiosity who isn’t offering a better explanation?

You have not offered a better explanation of the facts than the currently accepted scientific explanations that you reject. If you reject them, then you must provide better explanations of the observational evidence (if you want your arguments to have traction, that is). 

There is no scientific explanation for the beginning of all things and life, did I miss something? I am all in on creation by God, it's been my stance from the beginning, give me something that is purely naturalistic and explains the beginning. Where did all of the material and immaterial that makes up this universe come from, with just science?

And I stated as much in the list I gave

"I am all in on creation by God" - perhaps but do you not understand that 'God' (whatever that is meant to be) is not some kind of default or fall-back explanation for anything?

In terms of what is explicable and justifiable by current understanding, it's more of a grasping-at-straws form of belief.

No, it's not. First of all, the definition of the Big Bang includes that it didn't start itself. Secondly, believing in God doesn't mean you can't believe in old earth or the Big Bang. I think that was how God created the universe.