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

Scientific Law, Fact, and Theory "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." The word "fact" hasn't been used in my entire debate while my opponent has used it 15 times. Please allow me to give a proper explanation since an erroneous one was just given. A scientific theory is not simply an "idea" on its way to becoming law or fact: Scientific Law: An objective description of the natural world. Scientific Fact: An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true". (Truth in science, however is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.) Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Aspects of evolution, the Big Bang, and even gravity contain all three of these concepts. They are not mutually exclusive, and even something considered scientific fact is not absolute. http://ncse.com... "All scientific theories including the big bang have and continue to evolve and change with new research thus never making them absolute fact." Of which was never treated as such, only a reasonable conclusion with mounting evidence. A belief in a god is less so, as it's entirely faith driven. My opponent stresses that "absolute fact" is key to a logical and reasonable choice, then wouldn't science still come out on top? A fact, even poorly understood, with supporting evidence is still more logical than a faith based belief with no facts at all. The Big Bang and the Uncaused Cause "it could be deemed as fact that when discussing the big bang theory your left with only 2 conclusions" We simply don't know what was before the Big Bang, or the mechanisms that may have caused it (if it had a cause). Asserting that it's factually impossible for there to be any other option is unreasonable and illogical. Asserting that it must have been a highly unlikely and unprovable cause is even more illogical and complicates the issue even further. "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" We can offer supporting evidence and objective observations to suggest the Big Bang occurred. We do not have to witness something first hand to reasonably suggest its existence. However, we have neither the witness accounts nor supporting evidence to support a creator, making PRO's claim illogical. "everything that's in it (existence) has had some form of beginning" I've provided evidence on this subject; and my opponent makes assertions without any. Radioactive decay and virtual particles have given weight to my claim that actions can truly be without cause. Even if my opponent's statement was taken to be true, it still doesn't make a creator any more likely, or explain who created the creator. "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" This statement is highly contradictory to PRO's overall case. My opponent claims that her creator doesn't need a creator, but yet considers it highly illogical to believe that something comes from nothing. These two lines of thinking cannot coexist. "Something must have caused the big bang to occur" This assertion is made without evidence, and I have provided uncontested evidence to suggest an alternative. Even assuming that the universe must have had a cause, it's still an unreasonable leap to assume it must have been a specific, unprovable deity. Patterns Do Not Imply Intelligence "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." Patterns do not imply intelligence. A river flows through the path of least resistance. The water therein has no intelligence, no willful guidance system, nor any exciting plans as to what it's going to do once it arrives to an alternative body of water. Even with this being the case, water still flows uniformly and predictably. I can know with some certainty the river outside my house will continue to remain in its riverbed, and will flow the same direction it flowed yesterday. The river flows because the objective laws of the universe leave no other option. The river flows from inevitability, not "accident". Radioactive Elements "If radioactive substances are constantly disintegrating and have been doing so since the big bang and even prior to it" We have no knowledge or claims of what happened prior to the Big Bang. Everything on the planet, and in the universe gives off radiation. http://discovermagazine.com... Suggesting we'll "run out" is ignoring the fact that radiation is abundant and newly created under natural and synthetic circumstances. Ad Populum - Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong! 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." Following this fallacious ad populum reasoning, you must be Muslim, as it currently holds 22.74% of the world's believers, much greater than the 16.85% Catholicism holds (being Christian majority). https://www.cia.gov... "religion" itself may be the majority, but there's thousands of religions that combat one another (both literally and metaphorically). Some are pantheistic, others polytheistic, some atheistic, and even others monotheistic. They contradict one another, and can possess drastically different concepts of how the world was created, who created it, why, and those similar have hundreds or thousands of nuances that change their overall conformity. Realizing this, atheism and agnosticism beats out many existing religions. Suggesting that your minority religion is the truth; under the pretense of ad populum is contradictory. Especially since at some point Christianity itself came into existence, meaning that your faith started out with less than 2% of the world's population, yet you still believe. It was insane to question a flat earth when the majority believed it so. It was irrational (and dangerous) to challenge the geocentric model of the galaxy. Smoking is healthy, sneezing allows the devil access to your soul, witches exist, wolves are Satan's envoys. The list goes on. Believing something doesn't make it so. And simply accepting an idea as truth simply because it is believed by a majority is irrational. Conclusion Something potentially can come from nothing. The Big Bang didn't necessarily need to have a beginning. If it did, no evidence supports the belief in a deity being involved. My opponent relies on an unprovable assumption: That a deity exists. This assumption is made with no evidence, and contradicts what evidence we do have. A baseless assumption is highly irrational. A scientific theory supported with evidence and coinciding observations is rational. My opponent succinctly wrapped up my entire argument in one sentence: "The laws of nature have been tested scientifically, God's existence hasn't." This alone explains why it's illogical to believe in a deity rather than science. Thanks for reading!