a consideration of origins

At a certain level the assertion I make that God created the world (which I hope and believe to be true) is in terms of human philosophy, credibility, rationalism and even science itself, an honorable draw with one of the fundamental assertions of those who deem themselves atheistic scientists when they try to explain where the universe came from.
I have chosen to believe God created it.
The atheistic scientist will offer an explanation involving quantum theories or relativity or some other concatination of physics, chemistry and higher mathematics, and all cloaked in a beautifully inaccessible magnificently opaque veneer of inductive postulations.
Beautifully inaccessible.
Cloaked.
Opaque.
Because here we are dealing with what Einstein in one of his more unworthy moments, attributed to those of us who say we believe in God, namely mystification and priestcraft.
Bear in mind that as Einstein said this he was explicitly rejecting atheism, scientific or otherwise.
I am suggesting that the atheistic scientists mathematical and quantum based explanations for the origin of the universe are absolutely in the realms of priestcraft and mystification.
There is no honorable draw at this point between those who believe in God and those who advocate modern atheistic cosmologies.
I would say at this point that the believers in God as the creator of the universe are far more credible within philosophical, rational, spiritual and scientific parametres than those atheistic scientists who wallow in the priestcraft and mystification of quantum theories, steady states and the notion of the multiverse.
No.
The honorable draw comes when the atheistic explanation of the universe is stripped bare of its deliberate obfuscations.
An atheistic scientist (any of them) is saying: "Everything came from nothing and had no purpose or cause beyond accident."
The atheistic scientist who delves deeper into his own conceptions of reality, may try the equally untenable line that the universe has always existed or that the energy that created the universe has always existed in some form.
My own views boil down to: "God created everything and has always existed and was himself uncaused."
So each of is saying that something always existed..
That's the concept that the human mind whether of a believer or an atheist, boggles at.
We cannot yet grasp what we mean by eternal existence.
That's the honorable draw which I claim and admit to with the atheistic scientists.
I say more.
Although I use the term atheistic scientist to convey a particular mindset as proposed by a particular group of thinkers, there is in truth no such thing as an atheistic scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the most famous of them all, God bless him, and all the rest of them, are the most superstitious men on the planet.



*****************
Footnote: Einstein's insightful comment, including the reference to priestcraft which I interpreted as an unworthy sideswipe at Catholicism, went as follows: "If one purges the Judaism of the prophets, and Christianity as Jesus Christ has taught it, of all subsequent additions, specially that of priestcraft, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social evils of humanity. It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this really human teaching a living force, as far as he can. If he makes an honest effort in this direction, without being crushed and trampled under feet by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky." From The World As I See It. Also cited in The Answer To Moscow's Bible by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand.