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

Firstly "he" is actually a "she" if you would have used laws of logic/reason to notice my chosen avatar picture was that of a female you may not have come to a false conclusion, this may pose as example of an inability to look beyond individual opinion and learned behaviour patterns, drawing subjective conclusions, which you may have believed to be correct but were actually not, also a failure to see "what's right in front of you" and instead using your own subjective ideologies to draw up an image that was never there/existed. Next I would like to address your misinterpretation of what theory and fact actually mean, from reading your comments and arguments on this debate you claim the big bang theory as fact. Theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Fact - A thing that is known to be true No scientific theory is absolute fact they are ideas/conclusions which have been proven beyond reasonable doubt (at best) or studied and tested opinions of individuals (at least) they are of course worth there weight but in context are not absolute fact. To hold a view that theory is fact in the context of science is a very damaging view, as if all science is fact there is no room for debate, testing or new ideas, making the role of science itself void. All scientific theories including the big bang have and continue to evolve and change with new research thus never making them absolute fact. The very existence of sciences god of the gaps analogy should prove theories have gaps not making them absolute fact. Now on the subject of fact, it could be deemed as fact that when discussing the big bang theory your left with only 2 conclusions, that prior the big bang "something" existed and that energy itself both begins/ends at some point. If it was energy, matter or anything else that is the "something" which previously existed there is no explanation as to how that energy or matter itself came into existence. Without contradicting all scientific theory that the universe's existence is completely random and void of any purpose. In accordance with your rebuttals of my prior argument; God is impossible to completely prove in the same way that the big bang is impossible to completely prove unless we can witness god or have witnessed the big bang, witnessing would also be subjective dependant on individual. Your claim that it is indeed nonsensical for any individual to believe "something began is logical" is in itself nonsensical, the world around us, everything that's in it has had some form of beginning, my computer had a beginning of some kind whether in the factory it was made or even the mind/imagination of its initial creator, it came into existence through planned action, a varying belief that it created itself would be the more illogical thought process. Materialism can have a very simplistic definition as random or without purpose or prior cause, to in itself believe that my pen on my table can move without any outside force is not to believe in the random or without cause/purpose but to in fact believe in the very contradictory of that theory. If from your belief point the universe is not completely random that in itself is a belief that it has a purpose and things were planned in some way, this would lead on to mean that matter created itself with a purpose and is again a contradiction of scientific theory. "because there is now existence, then something has always existed" has been taken out of context I went on to explain either god always existed or matter has always existed, matter science will claim is inanimate and needs energy to exist, there is no proof it can create its own existence nor is there proof that energy can become a reality out of nothing, if god has always existed this argument doesn't say everything requires a cause - only things that begin to exist. If God is eternal, then he doesn't have a beginning. He therefore doesn't require a cause. In that case, it doesn't make sense to ask, "Who made God?" It's like asking, Who made the thing that wasn't made. The big bang theory totally contradicts that 'its not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else' something must have caused the big bang to occur, how is it possible otherwise ? and would it be deemed as logical explanation. If radioactive substances are constantly disintegrating and have been doing so since the big bang and even prior to it, there should be no radioactive matter left, it should have actually run out prior to the big bang unless of course it continues creating itself from nothing. "life can only come from life' any theory void of this concept would itself be a belief in an initial creator, if life does not come from life then the only other feasible argument is it was created from nothing, thus making it non random and rather planned. So the only feasible arguments for the universe coming into existence prior to the big bang without a creator are that The universe created itself from nothing. That's nonsense, people who claim such things are making horrible equivocations - they're equating "nothing" with something. By "nothing" they mean the quantum vacuum, which is definitely something, and which requires an explanation of its own. In our experience, causes are always physical. Thus, there can be no non-physical causes. The cause of the universe cannot be physical because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. So, either the universe just popped into existence from nothing without any cause (something contrary to both intuition and experience), or it has a non-physical cause. Quantum particles come into existence without a cause. Do they? Quantum particles are said to emerge from a quantum vacuum that is constantly fluctuating with energy, and is governed by physical laws and forces, such as gravity. Sounds like there are plenty of possible causes there. It would be more accurate to say that some quantum events/particles appear to occur without any detectable cause. That's very different. The laws of nature have been tested scientifically, God's existence hasn't. Think about what you're claiming. Something immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, all-powerful, and transcendent has been tested scientifically, but God hasn't? That seems odd. Actually, it's not accurate to say the laws of nature have been tested scientifically - the laws themselves haven't, regularities have. The laws are invisible and immaterial. It's only the effects (regularities) that can be studied scientifically. Rather, scientists have postulated the existence of laws to explain and describe the regularities. In so doing, however, scientists assume the existence of something remarkably similar to God, that even fills the same role as God (governing/sustaining the universe). Hence my conclusion: if it's rational to believe in the laws of nature, it is equally rational to believe in God. Next onto my final argument an argument most atheists don't wish to acknowledge, the popularity of the God theory even in a country such as America, where generally speaking all children are taught from an early age in scientific theory, 8 out of 10 Americans still believe that the universe has a creator and/or there is a God. Atheists make up only 2.9% of the worlds population. Ill give a complementary statistic on your part, as far as a Cambridge university study in 2005 88% of the worlds population believes in a god theory which culminates in the belief that this god created the universe. Are atheists really that arrogant and self engrossed to believe truly that such a majority of individuals worldwide are totally irrational and inept of clear rational thought, if it is indeed so illogical as you claim to believe in a god why do so many people continue within there 'non sensicle' beliefs.