Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life

You say God is opposed to logic, you take too seriously the semantics behind this argument. Perhaps it is more rationale to believe that God created "what is" through the creation of the 4 fundamental energies and several known and unknown types of matters, all of which are hardly understood today. The causal effect would then logically and systematically continue as is true with causal effects(determinism), one leading to the other. Logic, like the scientific method, is a standard and instrument with which we conclude fact, rationality is based on what logic is available. God cannot be defined, this is logically true. Yet rationally speaking neither can science and logic be completely defined. For we can only measure and observe the effects of the First Causation (presumably the Big Bang) through scientific method and logic which we follow toward the causation, yet science can never reach this cause(a good and simple rationale for this can be found in the second quote on the bottom). I have no quarrels with the possibility of the Big Bang, despite its many holes after the chain reaction, but rather I cannot believe that this is the answer of all answers to our origin. The math supporting the BB theory can only hold true while excluding any consideration of previous existence while affording the existence of the necessary foundations, not the least of which includes unfathomable amounts of energy and matter. Monthly discoveries are taking place that are redefining the laws of physics, discoveries which are changing how we view reality and certainty and the reach of our previous logical laws beyond our perceptions. The fallacy of scientifically founded logic is that you must believe their is an answer for the effect, you ought to be able to inductively conclude the cause yet there is no practical mathematical function that can explain something as simple as how zero becomes something. Even nothing is something, it is the lack of things in a space, yet what structure facilitates this volume of space and what supports that structure. Scientific logic is doomed to uncertainty in how things came to be, the nature of a thing, but it does a wonderful job of explaining the effect of any given cause yet the original causal effect lays beyond logic and understanding, only possibility. We can only rationalize our possibilities, of which their are many. And so our ancestors developed philosophy, the study of the nature of things, in order to explain that which is beyond the realm of science and logic. And so I conclude, that the belief in god is just as possible if not more reasonable than the belief that we can find answers beyond the big bang, despite our present standing. CS Lewis had said, "Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It"s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can"t trust my own thinking, of course I can"t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." Thomas Aquinas had said in his fourth of five proofs of god,(similar to what Aristotle and Plato had said long before. 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause 2. nothing finite and contingent can cause itself 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length 4. Therefore, a First Cause(or something that is not an effect) must exist Personal thought provoker -What is science but the explanation of mysticism, is the world any less mystifying or unfathomable knowing that what is came to be in a logical process. For as much as we know, there is so much we still don't or won't.