[Heartlander]

The first is creation de novo, ex nihilo — a something that comes into existence out of nothing; the second utilizes what has already been created. The second is accessible to the natural sciences; the first is not. At least, not under the prevailing scientific model of methodological naturalism.

Current science tries everything to avoid the ‘creation’ or beginning of our universe – but it fails on a logical basis. If there was an infinite past to nature we would never reach ‘here and now’. Nature must have a beginning for time to progress – and an infinite past would never start the stopwatch. An infinite amount of universes, or the multiverse, does not solve the problem either - nature still needs a beginning because it exists within time.

"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."
-Steven Hawkings

Natural – matter, energy, laws of physics, space, time.
Non-natural (supernatural) – not bound by space, time, matter, energy, or the natural laws of physics.

Hawkings is correct, before the ‘creation’ or beginning (Big Bang) there were no natural processes. Regardless of this fact, we know that natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from the supernatural.

[betty boop]

Current science tries everything to avoid the ‘creation’ or beginning of our universe — but it fails on a logical basis.

Indeed. That is exactly the problem. Which you so beautifully illustrate in your splendid post!

Forget questions of origin [First Cause]. Everything just "starts up" somewhere in mid-air — with no ground and no reason. Science doesn't seem to want to inquire into the details....

Thank you so very much for writing, dear Heartlander!