Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

It would entirely lack a context for it's existence it would mean we're an accidental byproduct.

You keep saying this like it's a rebuttal, but it really isn't: if we're an accident, so what?

Freewill, morality, good and evil would be all be fucked if that were true.

Why would that be the case? In your worldview the same basics apply: your god would be the eternal thing that lacks a context and was accidental, why does the presence of a consciousness in the mix suddenly validate free will and morality?

I don't see any good reason why that ought to be true particularly as we know our own universe is finite and had a beginning/point of creation.

Well, we know the universe in its current state had a beginning. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume that there was nothing before it, when science hasn't been able to investigate it fully.

If it was eternal in itself it could have just been eternal in itself so that suggests an eternal force, particularly when you take into account the balance of the natural order and the complex nature of life. Yes there was evolution but you can see that as a progression from simplicity to ever increasing level of sophistication resulting in humanity, or something like humanity ultimately.

Well, that's not exactly true: we see examples of regression of the loss of features just as often as we see the addition of new ones. My favorite example is whales, given that their ancestry actually lies in early ungulates, land animals that returned to the sea and developed aquatic forms like their sea based predecessors. If everything is moving toward complexity, with humanity being the top of that chain, then this alone violates your premise, but even in human life, we've lost some things along the way. We're no longer covered from head to toe in hair, for one. Our appendix no longer has a function, nor do our little toes: these are all examples of humans losing things, growing simpler as evolution does its work.

The only way you can really say there's a progression toward complexity is to ignore large swathes of what's actually happening with evolution.

You don't have to take Genesis 100% literally it only has to be true in general.

So how do you decide which parts don't have to be true? Or is it done in reverse, where the more the real world contradicts the book, the less the book has to be literally true in order to keep its credibility?

I'm not saying you can't have an eternal universe but I would object to it on good solid grounds. It isn't wishful thinking either as it makes more sense for the universe to have an eternal context and some kind of purpose in the way it was specifically formed that isn't beyond the bounds of reason at all.

Sorry, personal incredulity and what you think makes sense has no bearing on what's actually true.