(Please forgive my earlier posts; I had no idea you were really that young. Had I known this, I would have written in way that a person your age could more easily digest and understand—which I will of course do from this post onward.)
What you have said here is scientifically strong, but the discipline of science applies only to empirical questions. 'Empirical' means things that are available in some way to our sense perceptions (e.g., sight, touch, scent, taste, and hearing), things we can observe, measure, and test with likewise empirical results. Science tells us a lot about nature. But what if nature is only one part of reality? What if reality is larger than just the natural world?
What you and I are exploring in this conversation are some of these non-empirical questions, such as logic and reality itself, things that science is unable to address. That is why our toolbox for understanding reality is equipped with more tools than just science. As a matter of fact, one of these other important tools—philosophy—is itself the very foundation of science. In other words, science would not even exist if it were not for philosophy, because science functions on a large number of philosophical assumptions. Science is the building, and philosophy is the foundation upon which it rests; if you remove the foundation, then the building collapses.
You said that "life forms live, reproduce, and then die" in a competitive "food chain" network of predator and prey. That is something we observe when it comes to carbon-based biochemical life forms here on this planet, but that is not what you and I have been discussing. What you and I have been talking about (i.e., God) exists beyond not only this planet but the physical universe itself. You cannot take the 'rules of nature' that we observe on this tiny blue planet and impose them on the rest of the galaxy, the whole physical universe, and the entire scope of reality. And there are two interesting reasons why you can't. First, we have barely scratched 5% of the surface when it comes to understanding the physical universe; in other words, 95% of the physical universe we are completely ignorant about. Let's be clear, "95%" is a very big chunk. That means there is huge potential for what science 'knows' today being overturned in the future; i.e., you should be far, far more tentative about what you think we know.
Second, the fact that life forms are carbon-based is part of that humbling 5% of our knowledge; ergo, science is incapable of asserting that carbon-based life forms are the only type possible (e.g., carbon is not the only chemical element that has four valence bonds). And what we know about the 'rules of the game' when it comes to life applies only to what we know about carbon-based life forms on this little blue planet. But beyond this planet is a bigger solar system, within a large galaxy, within a vast cluster of galaxies, within a huge physical universe. We know a lot about our little blue planet, but (a) it absolutely pales in comparison to what we actually don't know about the physical universe, and (b) we have no reason to think that what applies here applies anywhere else in the cosmos.
And not everything has a beginning and an end. That is not only philosophically incorrect but—so far as we know—scientifically incorrect too. (See the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. It is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form). So no, not "everything." And if you meant that only in respect to life forms, see what I just wrote previously on that issue.
