I understand you, but then you would have to demonstrate that God created the universe. I think that’s a matter of belief, currently.
That “God is necessary to explain the existence of the universe”, however, could stand on its own as a logical proposition, even if the former proposition or the existence of God can’t be demonstrated.
I don’t believe it can stand without resorting to some form of special pleading–setting up conditions which explain why things must be created, and then setting aside God as a special case which doesn’t have to be created. Again, this could work as a belief but I don’t see how it can be a logically valid argument which stands on its own two legs.
it is hard to se how the universe could have come into existence without God.
For me, it is as hard to see how God could be eternal.
Of course if one does not believe in the existence of God, that is a problem.
That is why the Big Bang is central to the discussion of the reality of God. If the universe was created out of absolute nothing as the Big Bang Theory implies, then YHWH/God brought it into existence.
Currently though, there is disagreement on this point. I would suggest that you’re in the minority with your opinion that the Big Bang represents an emergence from a literal nothing.
I will say that Christianity does have explanatory power in that it gives necessary meaning and purpose to our lives.
Sure. I didn’t mean to say it can’t have any explanatory power any more than I meant it must have it. I was only referring to the single question of the logical necessity of God for the existence of reality.