Hello IAmMe77777, I hope you're having a good day today, and welcome to EvC.
IAmMe77777 writes:
It is a theory of how creation progressed, not the act of creation itself. A is A, and therefore science, cannot explain the act of creation because it is principle of observation.
I hope I understand what you mean by "A is A, and therefore science cannot explain the act of creatino because it is based upon principles of observation." It's not exactly how I'd put it, but I think I get what you're trying to say.
But, what makes you think there was an "act of creation" that requires a why in the first place? What happened to "A is A" for where this idea comes from?
What, specifically, shows to you that this universe was initiated through an act of creation? Why must that be true? Surely you understand the foibles of an "everything must come from something" argument. For one, you seem to agree that it's possible that "nothing" never existed. Therefore, the universe (possibly) always existed in some form. Therefore (if true), there would not be any act of creation that would require an explanation.
So again, what specifically makes you so sure that an act of creation occurred? That is, if you truely accept this "A is A" philosophy, what is it that concretely, objectively, verifiably shows that an act of creation must have happened?
If you're not sure that an act of creation actually happened, then all this stuff about faith and science coming together seems to be... well, let's just say... "not based on the A is A philosophy."