In logic, you cannot use a premise to prove itself.
Science was founded upon the belief in a Lawgiver who governs the universe with natural Laws. It is irrational to say that laws exist without a lawgiver.
Thus, science is founded upon the assumption that there is a Lawgiver (God). This means you cannot use science to prove there is a God (since God’s role was assumed to establish science in the first place), but it also means it is irrational to argue that science proves there is no God (since that would contradict the founding premise of science in the first place).
The argument of Dawkins and company is basically “We are certain the universe obeys laws, therefore there cannot be a Lawgiver.” Which is exactly as stupid as it sounds.
Not trying to bait you, or challenge you or even to disagree.
I don't try to or even care to question "the peace which passeth all understanding"--in my poor faltering sinful way I am simply content to have faith in God and to try to leave His ways to Him.
But your posts are interesting and thoughtful and I am curious as to where your statement above leaves in you in regard to free will.
Truly, I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I'm just guessing that it is something you have given considerable thought to.
Thanks.