The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

A question I will propose to you, the reader, is this:Why is it that the big bang must have a cause, but God mustn't?You could argue that god simply exists, or has always existed, but that argument is unfair, and flawed. If you were to simply state that God doesn't need a cause I could just as easily say that about The Big Bang Theory. Why? There is one fact that completely trumps this argument. Something had to have existed before God. Now, believers will commonly debate that God doesn't exist upon a timeline, or God isn't subjected to the rules of time and to that I ask, why not? The question of whether or not God would exist on a universe parallel to ours is much more complex than simply using mathematical equations to get a result, in order to answer that question we would need to prove the existence of a said God, but that is not what the purpose of this debate is for, nor has it ever been done.In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right? It would be illogical to assume that this multi-dimensional plane of ethereal existence has existed indefinitely, because we can track down how old the universe itself is. This very fact eliminates the possibility of a God, because if God is supposed to be a being in which created the universe and all of the things in it, but he could not have created the space that existed before he did, then that logically would mean that the idea of God is, as I said, an idea.The Laws of Physics, in particular is a subject of much speculation as to who created them in the first place, and many believers do like to say that God ultimately created the laws of physics, so by technicality he created the universe. When you look at the laws of physics from a logical standpoint, the so-called "laws" of physics are only a series of mathematical equations and "rules" that explain a natural phenomenon. When you look at certain things they don't even work on the conventional laws of physics, and therefore I propose to you this:Maybe the Law of Physics are flawed. Maybe the event that caused The Big Bang to happen is similar to certain phenomenon in which it didn't respond to the normal Laws of Physics. Maybe science has not gone far enough as to explain the phenomenon that is The Big Bang, such as science hadn't advanced far enough to know the equation for calculating gravity 1000 years ago.Not to be misunderstood, I am not saying that there are things that directly disobey the Laws of Physics, because the Laws of Physics are relative, I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet.In conclusion, the denial of quantum fluctuation is simply a tactic that believers will use in order to make their argument more convenient for them. By saying that a God does not need a cause because he is an omniscient being with no rules or regulations you're accepting a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, and you're also making your argument idiot proof. By saying that something doesn't need to be caused by something you essentially lift every shred of burden of proof that you would normally have, because your point of defense can always be "he has always been around, and doesn't need to be caused by something", but that logically is just wrong. Me, you, anyone on this planet was born as an effect of reproduction, but god, being a living entity, is somehow not subject to being created through sexual reproduction. You cannot say that god was created just as life on earth was created because then, by that logic there was still something that predates it.