My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[Mister Agenda]

Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

In every case where we've found the answer to something in nature, it has actually turned out to be natural. In science, the question isn't considered answered until it is both understood and confirmed by evidence.

The problem with explaining the origin of the universe isn't with finding answers that work mathematically and match the available evidence; it's that there are multiple 'answers' (hypotheses) that we don't have a way of confirming with evidence yet. If we never do, the answer to the question, scientifically, will be 'We don't know' forever.

Science doesn't pretend to have answers when it doesn't. That is what makes it more tenable than clinging to a cultural construct made by people who didn't know the earth orbits the sun.