Ah, so an another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then, when you claimed “There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.” it was pure assumption based on us not currently having one. Again this rationale is based on a known common logical fallacy, ipso facto it is demonstrably irrational.
Not at all, my argument I suppose could be classified as a reductio ad absurdum argument though. Once again I am most certainly not assuming there’s no material explanation, rather I’m inferring there is none, because logically - considering what constitutes an “explanation” - a mechanism cannot be used to explain said mechanism.
All materialist explanations - true explanations - are reductionist, they explain A in terms of B and C, this is true of all scientific explanations. Its rather obvious then that in order to proffer a materialist explanation for something we must - absolutely must - presuppose the existence of material laws/quantities.
To suggest that the presence of the universe can be scientifically explained is therefore absurd because one must assume the existence of a universe in order to construct an explanation for the presence of the universe, so it is you Sir who is making assumptions.