Return to the article, Don Battan concludes his first section, "Origin of the Universe", with the following

<<"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This is not magic, because God, who is eternal and omnipotent, is a sufficient cause for the universe. And He can exist eternally (and therefore has no beginning) because He is a non-material entity (God is spirit, as the Bible says in many places).>>

It appears that the fundamental weakness of the any materialist explanation of the beginning of the universe is that it relies upon laws of nature that it cannot explain.

Science cannot explain the laws of nature because logically they are independent of space-time and science can only offer explanations about space-time phenomena.

So logically science cannot offer an explanation of the "laws of nature".

grateful,

That quote of Batten’s is special pleading. It’s fallacious, sorry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

<<It appears that the fundamental weakness of the any materialist explanation of the beginning of the universe is that it relies upon laws of nature that it cannot explain.>>

Not necessarily. From a materialist point of view, one could also hold out for explanations that we may not yet have, or have no way of yet testing properly (e.g. string theory). Either way, the explanation is likely to be a naturalistic one, like Zeus's lightning bolts.

Inserting a god into the increasingly small gaps of our knowledge doesn’t explain anything. It's fallacious. A god has no explanatory power. It is mere temporising by pushing the question back a step, because then you need to explain where God came from.

I know, I know. God is eternal. You still need to demonstrate that, though. And if that’s not possible, then fine. All that would mean is that we’ll never know. It doesn’t give us a licence to just assert God’s existence.

The issue of our time is not "Is it science", but rather to what extent mainstream science now lives in a surreal world of its own making far removed from reality.

I have no problems with a claim, hypothesis or any theory being proposed. That is what science and physics is all about. What concerns me the the current enforcement of a godless “philosophy” in the name of science: The imposition of the metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma of atheistic SCIENTISM masquerading as science. The hard-core atheism of “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism which is now being deceptively paraded as science is nothing more than metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma. A religious dogma founded on unproven “blind faith” beliefs well beyond the testable and verifiable limits of science and physics. A growing number of scientists and philosophers now openly acknowledge this, including atheistic philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and Daniel Dennett. As admitted by Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

johnheininger,

Dan Dennett rejects the notion of scientism as a straw man, and I agree with him:

http://youtu.be/6u3YXvDUqMc?t=104

Scientism is an -ism without any -ists. It’s a nonsense term used by people to stop others in their tracks when they become uncomfortable with science exploring an area that they don’t want it to, or feel that it shouldn’t. Throwing the term out there is a desperate attempt to censor others by invoking a metaphorical ghasp from the metaphorical audience followed by metaphorical murmurs of concern:

“Oh no! It’s scientism!”
“What’s scientism?!”
“I don’t know, but it doesn’t sound good.”

Science may have its limits. Science can’t disprove solipsism or Last Thursdayism, for example. But like with God, if you settle on ideas such as these, then there’s nowhere further you can go.

Science is all we have at the moment. Religion doesn’t answer anything, it merely asserts.

It's time you joined the real world! Dennett and his atheistic fellow travelers are up to his ears in atheistic SCIENTISM, masquerading as science.

The Carte blanc assertion that science can know and define the ultimate nature of reality now permeates mainstream science at every level, and in every field of science. That is what the bazaar quest for the godless ToE is all about. And reveals the extent to which the scientific world has been seduced by the hard-core atheism of “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism.

Philosophical Naturalism is discredited. There is a major problem with this mindless atheistic religious premise: It is impossible for “finite” humanity with limited insights, knowledge and understanding define “infinity”, or even substantiate that the scientific world really knows, that they really know.

That the scientific world is naive enough to even engage in such an impossible quest beggars belief. Of course, scientists must always look for natural processes and causes to explain any observation or phenomena. That is what science and physics is all about. The scientific revolution was founded on the theistic premise that the universe is both rational and intelligible, because a rational and intelligent God created it. Without this initial premise it is impossible to do science.

However, when mainstream science abandoned the theistic scientific paradigm on which the pioneers of modern operated, and fully embraced the hard-core atheism of philosophical naturalism the scientific world entered a surreal world that was neither rational nor scientific. It is a world where the absurdities of atheistic “Scientism”, now rule.

grateful: Science cannot explain the laws of nature because logically they are independent of space-time and science can only offer explanations about space-time phenomena.

Neither than an invented God. This was primitive mans attempt to answer the question of where did this all come from. No science 80 thousand years ago so they inserted a mystical figure using the Term "God" as an explanation. It also helped to control the newly settled peoples around 8000 BC.

The fact of the matter is, we really don't know, but science is at least investigating the matter. Where-as Religion blindly accepts some mysterious phenomena know as "God." Most Religions have given up killing unbelievers but some haven't.