Evidence for creation discussed

Well, I'm not sure how you could limit God as the answer to anything big or small since as the creator and sustainer of all things, there isn't anything apart from God.

So you claim...

It is a matter of definition; God creates everything, He did it for His good purposes, He holds it all together by the power of His world, being all-powerful, knowing, and everywhere in His completeness, what would be out of His providence? Outside of our wills being our own, where we can either love or hate, give or take, there is nothing outside of Him; even evil is marked or registered as the absence of goodness, so we can know there is a distinction.

This means both the material and the immaterial parts of the universe owe themselves to God, not just the stuff in the material world.

Now you're just spouting religious dogma!

Where's the evidence and the argument to support what you claim?

Some of what I said is without a doubt through revelation, we learn from each other through that all of the time, when you write I know what you mean, what you think, God creating all things can also do that.

How many times does this simple truth have to be repeated - something isn't fact because we say so, or because it pleases us to be so. It's a fact because evidence establishes it to be so,  irrefutably.

What facts have you that you can point to? 

No facts beyond what scientific enquiry has established, only theories. But that's my point because we shouldn't claim to know as fact that which is unsupported by evidence.

There comes a point when it's sensible to admit that we don't know and leave it there until more information comes in.

Seriously, your plan is waiting till ...  until ... what facts need to come in so you feel what you know is all you need to know?

You don't have enough information to draw firm conclusions. That's all there is to it.

Discoveries in the future may well move the discussion on but until then we don't know.

You think we will discover something that allows the universe to create itself out of nothing; you think we will find something other than what already is that responsible for the universe, which by the way, if it is already part of the universe, means it would still have to create itself out of nothing? What exactly is missing? The only thing left is something that transcends the universe that isn't a part of it. What could we find that would change that?

What is not clear about we don't have enough information [at this time] to reach any safe conclusion?

And as others have pointed out, if a first cause must be established a non-natural one requires such a cause as much as a natural one.

Asserting that a divine cause to the Universe magically requires no explanation is nothing more than conjuring!

If the choice is binary, what is there to ponder? If the universe cannot create itself, then something else did it. Getting to that place only leads to the next question, it the universe didn't do it, who or what did? New questions arise only after the first one is settled, but if we refuse to settle the first question because of the possibilities of the second, that isn't wise. So saying we have to wait until all possible choices are eliminated till we get the truth, we will be waiting forever.

Theoretical work continues apace. What more can be said?

What exactly is the rush to answer a question that was raised only relatively recently? That's to say as a result of the Big Bang theory that resulted from the discovery that all (most?) galaxies are rushing away from each other at considerable speed.

Remember, it was only in the 1960's I think that the 'steady-state' model of the Universe was finally abandoned. That's within my lifetime.

* "In 1964, the CMB was discovered, which convinced many cosmologists that the steady-state theory was falsified"

I suppose that depends on the answers if they carry meaning and consequences.

Not sure I understand? What do you mean by "meaning and consequences"?

Whatever the fact of the matter is here it will have no regard for anyone's need for meaning.

That is a huge assumption on your part; if you have no idea how it happened, the reasoning behind it all would be just as important as anything else.

That's why I asked how you are using the term 'meaning'? Beyond the brute facts of how the Universe came to emerge, what meaning do you have in mind?

I understand how our knowledge will increase but why should there necessarily be meaning in it? And beyond the reasoning of human beings, what other 'reasoning' do you have in mind?

When we speak about everything in the universe even the immaterial must be accounted for, so acknowledging we act and talk with intent and meaning; that too is as much a part of the discussion as rocks and fish. We speak and write which is a revelation to those that understand our meaning, so the beginning requires an answer for that too!

You're losing me somewhat. If we're the only conscious species in the Universe then it took some 13,000,000,000 years before 'meaning' emerged.

The very word implies purpose and there's no reason we know of to think that purpose was involved in the formation of the Universe.