God cannot be scientifically/philosophically proven nor disproven

I guess, I'll start off with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument and then explain each of the premises: 1) Whatever begins to or already exists has a cause/explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external explanation. 2) The Universe has an explanation/cause for its existence, and that is grounded in God (a necessary being). 3) The Universe exists. 4) Therefore the universe has a cause/explanation to its existence. 5) The cause/explanation of the Universe can only be a necessary being. C) God exists. The 1st premise of this argument uses the same reasoning as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz"s Principle of Sufficient Reason which is considered to be an actual Law of Thought/Logic. If we start to deny that things that have existed in the past, present or future do not require a cause/explanation for their existence, that would make conducting Scientific experiments and using the Scientific Method impossible or very difficult to apply in the natural world since things could cause their own existence and not have a cause/reason/explanation for how so. Predicting anything would be very difficult to do which nullifies multiple forms of reasoning such as Deduction (the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.) & Induction (reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given). Wouldn"t you assume the logical conclusions you form about anything are backed by sufficient reason? People that argue that particles come into existence from nothing via Quantum Fluctuation are simply misunderstanding Science, the entire Universe is filled with energy (not as much as before though since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy explain that the Universe is constantly moving to a phase called Thermodynamic Equilibrium where there"ll be no more usable energy for us and we"ll all cease to exist). Particles probably come from the energy that is in the Universe, and I"m sure anyone who knows that Energy = Mass X (Speed of Light)^2 (which I guess the equation is true regarding examples such as the way an atomic bomb works) can understand that this energy conversion is more logical and possible than something that violates logic itself (Something From Nothing. For an event to occur, there must be a conscious being present that has the capability to do something by itself (Agent Causation). Premise 2 : Many Atheists agree with Theists is that the Universe does indeed exist necessarily because it is the foundation for matter, space, time, energy, this planet which we live that is able to support life, the fact that the stream of consciousness exists etc. Without the Universe, none of these things (because they"re all inside of it) would be able to work in the way they all do today, yesterday and tomorrow. If the Universe was necessary in itself, it would have to be eternal (never failing to exist and always was) and changeless (never changes, correlates with eternal). But if the Universe was changeless and eternal, why is it undergoing this Redshift (the widening of the Universe at some velocity that"s supposed to be greater than light) that Edwin Hubble "discovered" that cosmologists say "the Universe is infinitely inflating" (Cosmic Inflation) ? Also the Borde-Guth-Vilekin Theorem of 2003 explained that the Universe which is believed to be expanding cannot be past eternal (which is the implication since there had to have been a moment in the finite past where the Universe to have been formed for it to be expanding or been experiencing a stage where that was not happening). Then questions like "why is Earth the only planet known to man the one that can support and has life (assuming this is the case)?" are asked (this brings up the topic of Fine-Tuning). So if people want to make the argument that the Universe doesn't need to have been created by a necessary being (God) but a necessary substance instead, this would not work since even though the necessary substance avoids the problem of infinite regression, to be able to do something, as mentioned before the substance would have to be conscious, have the ability to do something by itself because something without a mind or being alive for that matter cannot act on its own or be able to create something contingent (agent causation) and it would not be made up of anything in the Universe so it would most likely be immaterial, intelligent enough to know how to craft/formulate things, the power to act accordingly and independent of space, time, the cycle of life, energy, 3 dimensions, the laws of physics that apply to this Universe etc. which sounds like a Necessary Being anyways because a substance cannot do these things without influence from something that matches all these characteristics. Premise 3 : Is a statement of fact, if you're one of those guys who suggests Solipsism, the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis or whatever illusionary type idea, I can address any of those if you want to include that (if you were to object to premise 3 which people have actually done before) . Premise 4 : I did my best to explain. Premise 5 : Explained through 2. Conclusion : This is my current scientific/philosophical argument for God.