I didn’t say that it did come from nothing, God is eternal with no beginning or end, He has life in Himself and is the Creator.
I’m trying to understand the logic of the intellectual person who is using scientific approach who seems to reject that their is a God. Or at least clear up some things
Well, then, neither do scientists say it 'comes from nothing'.
One thing to realize is that modern science identifies the universe as *all* of space *and time*. So time and space are part of the universe. Also, all causality happens in time, so all causality happens *inside* of the universe.
And that means the universe itself is uncaused.
Part of the scientific approach is to admit that we don't know everything. If there is no data about a situation, then nothing should be said about that situation. And any data we have should be taken as simply the best we have so far and NOT the final word.
In other words, the scientific method is one of humility: that we do not know it all and that we need evidence to even attempt to understand. It is accepting that even our most cherished ideas can be wrong and should be discarded or changed in the face of evidence showing them to be wrong.
So, we start with what we know and can show immediately: that usually involves things that can be done in a lab or seen in a telescope. We use this to build more general descriptions (theories) of how things work. This allows us to build new tools and then to probe more complex or previously hidden phenomena.
The scientific method itself is very general: test all ideas by actual observation, discard or change those that don't fit, and try to break even your most cherished beliefs to find out their limitations.
The conclusions of this process have built up over the last four centuries: first we learned that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Then we learned some of the general principles of motion. We learned about chemistry, electromagnetism, the nature of the atom, and how the nucleus of atoms works. We have learned that things at the subatomic level work in ways that are not contemplated in classical philosophy. And we have learned a great deal about the dynamics of space and time.
All in all, we have learned a tremendous amount in the last 400 years. Among these things, and again counter to all expectations originally, the Earth is far older than expected, biological species change over time, our galaxy is not the only one, our sun is a star, and life is far more diverse than anyone ever imagined.
But these are the conclusions made, based on observations, and the scientific method, not the scientific method itself. The method is the best way we have of learning about the universe around us. It takes into account our fallibility and requires testing of all of our ideas. AND it requires that we attempt to show our ideas are wrong, again by actual observation. Any idea that is not at risk of being shown wrong by some (potential) observation is simply discarded as worthless. Such ideas add no actual knowledge.