h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As with many branches of scientific inquiry, additional information has the habit of changing assumptions, which can then change the logicality of the conclusions.

For example, Newtonian physics were considered fact until Einsteins energy/mass equation changed it all. Newtonian still works pretty well on Earth, but is cosmologically insufficient.

Einstein wanted to "believe" in static universe, so he tried to create one by introducing a cosmological constant, his self-admitted worst mistake. Instead, modern physics has proven (within its capabilities and therefore the best we have for this discussion) that our universe is an expanding universe. The predicted and discovered background radiation from the big-bang adds credence to how the whole general mish-mash began.

What that implies is that there was a singular event, alone and non-repeating, which caused an awful lot of stuff to form/happen that had previously been either stable or non-existent. This leaves us with only two logical choices:

If non-existent than it had to come from somewhere; i.e. be created/deposited/transferred through some means. If stable it may have been there forever (but that implies eternal stability, as there is no "time-trigger"). Then, something had to make it suddently unstable enough to "bang".

Either way, the one-way, non-repeating nature of the universe demands that it have a causitive beginning. And any universe, that suddenly takes it upon itself to exist, must have someone or something to trigger it. Someone, something, or some process has to make the decision that this is what it shall be, and this is how and when it shall happen. Eternal stability cannot suddently become unstable without a cause, and eternal non-existence cannot suddenly become existent without a cause. Here, cause and creator are synonymous.

I guess what I was trying to say is:
Philosophy can go hang when science already provides proof.