Science and religion are at they're worst when they become dogmatic in the truth. They become weaponized for control, be it, Anthony Fauci claiming to be the science, or believing your faith demands you kill.

But both are utilities for good, if they persistently lead you to wonder.

Without religion, science may not have been discovered ( as in the method to question it all).

Without science, religion would purely be dogmatic, rather than expanded to find wonder in more.

I agree that an ideology fettered in absolutism is a problem—except free-speech—but my point isn't about what is right or wrong individually.

It's about why all arguments disagree fundamentally, yet all struggle with the same fault.

They all assume there was a beginning.

We all assume a beginning must have happened, but I'm trying to suggest that must be an assumption overlooked and obviously wrong.

To assume everything came to be with a start point, means agreement can never be found.

But if existence always is, there is no need to disagree on how everything begun.

For all things to come from nothing, something must exist: as nothing has no meaning unless it has something to be without.

Existence can't have a beginning to explain how it came to be. Existence just has to be, as it can't be any other way.