[kulahan]

It is explicitly anti-science to pretend you have any true idea what is outside the universe, friend. We can guess at it of course, but you’d have to be extremely early on in your education to think “the tool that explores the universe” is somehow incompatible with “something explicitly not inside the universe”.

[BrandoElFollito]

I am indeed early in my education (I am an engineer and have a PhD in physics) but from what I know, science, roughly speaking says - "we know what we know". And what we know, we know it by thinking out some models and matching them with experimental data. If the model fits, it is good enough for now.

What we cannot model or measure yet - we do not know. Plain and simple. We do not try to push an agenda of a deity of some sort which did all of that and therefore the "explanation" is that god is great.

We admit that we do not know and, hopefully, we will know at some point but before then we do not put ourselves in the comfortable shade of someone sitting on a cloud in the sky who know it all (but does not want to share :))

[kulahan]

Correct, the discussion of a creator rests purely within the philosophical realm. That’s my point. To make a decision absent any evidence, yet knowing it’s a realm that needs to be considered (the outside of our universe) is explicitly anti-scientific.

Again, it’s got nothing to do with a guy sitting on a cloud. Anything natural to the universe must comply with the laws of physics. Any “powerful dude” is only a god until a “more powerful dude” comes along, realistically speaking.