I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old? The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet. That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!
Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge gaps in it. As a scientist, I can tell you the PROCESS of science is excellent at getting at the truth, but its ability to do so depends on the AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BUILD A THEORY. Science really has no idea yet what gravity really is or does; it is the height of folly then to expect that it can have a cogent answer for how the universe really started, was created or began.
Nothing in religion or science suggests that God waved a magic wand----- truth is that no one knows exactly how or what happened. So if you want to use the term "magic" like some primitive for anything above your understanding, fine, but the oldest records we have going back to the beginning of civilization 5,000 years ago passed down through the ages from the Vedas tells us this is how it happened and has been repeated over and over again in the historical record.
Actually, nothing in science precludes the existence and role of God neither! When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real argument against God by science is that it or He is simply one more thing science as yet can neither prove nor disprove, explain nor dismiss, so the general consensus among scientists is to generally discount those things not at least supported by conjecture, theory or experimentation. That leaves it up to the individual, much like picking the winner of tomorrow's football to pick where their beliefs fall:
ATHEISTS fall on the side of skepticism because God has not come up and overtly revealed himself to THEM, appeared in Washington DC, nor made any overt proof self-evident that one can measure with a yardstick.
THEISTS fall on the side of belief (faith) because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS.
Take your pick.
If you have evidence of one or more gods who created the universe you are welcome to present that evidence. In the meantime, we have no evidence of un-natural circumstances causing un-natural events anywhere in human existence. So yes, it is entirely consistent to claim that ''nothing in science supports a god-created universe'', unless of course, you have such evidence. Which god(s) do you think could be the front runner for the 'most likely' title?
None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.
Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
As time goes by, and gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers
If you want to posit a unique god(s), that's fine. I wouid suggest first understanding that all religions are syncretic in that they borrow / steal from preceeding religions. We see in religions the morphing of characteristics that define the gods people invent. You need only read the OT (Hebrew scriptures stolen by christianity), and the NT to understand the morphing of the gods. Zeus was descended from earlier ancient entities, the Titans. Zeus was the son of Kronos and Rhea. Kronos was himself the child of Ouranos and Gaia. The inventors of religions tend to steal ruthlessly from earlier belief systems and earlier inventions of supernatural characters. That's evident in his formulation of christianity and not at all uncommon with other religions.
I would also suggest understanding that as mankind has emerged from earlier fears and superstitions and kearned about the natural world, the inventions of new religions and the gods not mere coincidence that as mankind has grown and learned to explore the natural world, inventions of new gods and their respective religions has ended.
The last "major" religion to be invented was islamism which is a syncretic faith. Most of its core ritual and god (as well as most of its theology) is stolen from the preceeding Abrahamic faiths and from Arab paganism.
While nothing precludes Amun Ra, Zeus or any of the millions of Hindu gods from being the soring-winders of the universe, we're left with a curious refusal by the promoters of currently configured gods to accept Amun Ra being just as likely extant as Zeus or the three-party christian gods.
As to theists falling on the side off belief, "because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS." Thats fine of course but countless people report encounters with everything from Bigfoot to space aliens, to Nessie to all sorts of absurdities.
Are we required to believe all of that?