Near the end of cited video with Dr. Larry Krauss, there was a mention that scientists were worried for a moment. Based on context, it appeared they were worried that scientific evidence and reasoning might point toward God. Many scientists and others don't want that outcome.
Krauss made a number of digs at religion, but I'm not sure which one you mean. He's not likely to think anything will point to God.
In order to apply the scientific method consistently, there is the need to follow the evidence WHEREVER IT GOES for AS LONG AS IT TAKES to find the Truth.
Absolutely.
I read recently somewhere that a committee of scientists or atheists had voted on whether their organization would allow evidence and arguments that included God as a possible cause during investigations. In the vote, I'm sure that at least a few would not allow it. They don't want a God to rule over them or even to consider the possibility.
What organization is this? The claim sounds a bit bizarre. I wouldn't be surprised if there is not much substance to this story.
If God made us, then He gets some ownership rights in the deal. Bible-based sexual standards are more supported if God owns our bodies. Many don't want that conclusion or those standards.
Given that there have been a wide range of sexual mores throughout history I find this claim to be really strange. For example, there is a story of an early English explorer among the Inuit who was murdered by an irate husband because the Englishman had refused the offer of his wife for the night. The Inuit man took it as a great insult that his wife had been refused. Another story comes from Japan during its Middle Ages. Marriages did not become official until the young bride had demonstrated her ability to become pregnant. There are as many different sexual mores as there are human cultures. You may note that from the time of King Solomon to the time of Paul, sexual mores recorded in the Bible were always in flux. It all depended on the cultural viewpoint of the writers. In my eyes this is quite plain.
First cause arguments are logical.
I don't think first cause argument is logical.
If the universe needs a cause, then why not God?
If Krauss is correct then the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation. I don't know if that is true, but once I have the raw matter before me then I have no problem understanding how stars and planets formed naturally. I don’t need a first cause beyond that provided by science, and should that explanation prove wrong, then maybe astrophysicists 300 years from now will have the definitive explanation. Who says we have to have all the answers now.
The difficulty with your argument is that it is circular. The universe exists because God exists, and God exists because the universe exists; that is unless someone gives a different explanation for the universe existing, and as we know another explanation now exists.