is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory

FIirstly I would like to begin with stating reason works according to logic, yet most people are unfamiliar with what logic is. Sure, they use the term "logical" to refer to things that make sense to them, and "illogical" to refer to things that don't. We may not realize that logic is a rich academic discipline, with laws and theories, just like science and math. And similar to scientific laws, such as gravity, everyone feels the effects of the laws of logic, whether they realize it or not. When we reflect on the kind of thing a law of logic must be, we see that it points to God's existence in at least 2 ways, the laws of logic show materialism is false by revealing that non-physical causes exist and laws of logic point to a rationality beyond the universe. We need to realize that there are only two choices, there either was at some time God (or similar power, I will use the term "God") which started the universe or there was not. If there was not, then the universe is completely random and life has no purpose. If there was a God, does this God still exist and if so does this existence affect our lives although this does not directly apply to the question being debated. So because there now is existence, then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed. Matter, as much as is scientifically known is composed of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, no one really knows what protons, neutrons, or electrons are composed of--though some type of energy appears probable there are also quarks and other items that seem to be involved. Electrons "orbit" the nucleus of atoms at incredible speeds. They are always orbiting. As much as we humans know about about energy, is that without an external source, everything will eventually run out of energy. Thus, it is not logical that matter has always existed nor is it logical that matter came into existence from nothing, as there would have needed to be energy in the first place for the matter to create itself. Also, as much as humans know about motion, it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else, thus it is not logical that electrons would be in motion unless something started them to be in motion, it may be possible that any of these points can happen but it is the illogical argument, the argument with least scientific proof. The fact that it appears that there seems to be substantially more matter than antimatter (which in theory would be 50-50 if a non-Divine 'big bang' produced the universe) also suggests that the universe was designed (some say that perhaps there is a huge amount of antimatter). If matter/antimatter is not 50-50, then that violates a law of parity/balance in physics. So, this is another reason that physicists should consider a Divine Creator. It is also the most simple conclusion aswell as the conclusion which make most sense, reality is reality and is in general simple, you can create a mathematical theory to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and can argue that it may be possible, but realistically 2 + 2 = 4. The fact of radioactivity also suggests that matter has not always existed. Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left. And science has proved that radioactive matter still exists. To get around this point, some scientists suggest that the atomic structure of matter is reconfigured every several billion/trillion years through a hypothesis known as the oscillating universe theory, it is an interesting idea, but one that there is absolutely no proof for, as well as one that violates the known laws of physics as well as the known pattern of the universe. One on its major tenets is that as energy is exhausted from our expanding universe, the gravity of the universe finally brings all matter together for a later reconfiguration (and explosion). This concept is absurd: it is like saying that after all material in an explosion stops moving that the attraction of all the material will bring it back together. I used to use firecrackers as a child and can tell you this does not happen. I understand about the effects of gravity and friction, but there is no friction in outerspace, thus there is nothing to slow the expansion down. Furthermore, the Hubble telescope has proved that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, rather than decreasing, thus totally disproving the oscillating universe theory. Many scientists now have correctly concluded that the universe will expand forever. This happens to be consistent with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7). I always felt that the oscillating universe theory violated the known laws of physics and was an attempt by some scientists to try to persuade themselves that there the universe had no beginning and that there was no God. A belief many evolutionists falsely cling to is that life somehow sprang up from inanimate matter. A leading law of biology is biogenesis. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. The non-God theory of human-life would have us believe that protein-like substances became alive, somehow figured that it had to eat, somehow knew what to eat, figured out how to eat it, figured out how to digest what was eaten, then figured out how to reproduce so that it would not die out. I find this hard to accept. Single-celled creatures are too complicated to have simply came together by random chance in order to live. The idea that this life somehow knew how to evolve and turn into humans over time is just as absurd. I'm not attempting to deal with all aspects of evolution, but will state that the fossil records do not support the evolutionary concept that species gradually evolved into other species, Darwin thought that over time this would occur, but to this date, it still has not, hence the argument by some religious people "why havn't all the monkeys evolved into humans" which may seem silly but is actually a good point. It has been argued that the fact that there is natural law, design, and order in the universe, this would prove that there was a law giver, designer, and order maker in the universe. This is consistent partly with what the Bible teaches on this subject. So to get onto science's main theory the "Big Bang Theory" many scientists and generally people who aggressively argue against a creator fail to realise that in 1927, it was a Belgian priest named Georges Lema"tre used Einstein's General Relativity equations to propose a radical idea the universe is expanding. Two years later, Edwin Hubble confirmed Lema"tre's hypothesis; it later became known as the "Big Bang" theory. The idea of an expanding universe did not sit well with a number of physicists, however, including Einstein. Why? Because it meant the universe had a beginning, and they knew that has enormous theological implications. Fast forward to the present. Due to a number of dramatic empirical confirmations in the last century, scientists now are unable to deny that a Big Bang occurred and the universe is expanding. However, many physicists have been trying to come up with models that explain the evidence and include a Big Bang, yet somehow avoiding an absolute beginning to the universe and further more questions such as who created the space in which the big bang happened, or the energy itself that caused it to occur the physicist Alexander Vilenkin has proved mathematically that all the models physicists have conceived of to avoid a beginning, must themselves have a beginning. His proof has been reported by numerous science journals and blogs. Thus making it I believe that the logical explanation for the universe is a creator, therefor making it logical for most people to believe in the God theory.