The "idea" of god most likely came from proto-humans (that's a technical term) observing natural phenomenon that appeared to be supernatural. It's that easy, yo! If you're a cave-Sacerdotus and you see the Northern Lights, I'd bet nickles to pancakes you'd assume there was an all-powerful being watching you from the sky who's prepared to punish you.

I've done enough explaining why not (not in this debate, obviously) that I have no desire to do it again any time soon, it just became far too easy to be worth the effort. So I go with "no".

that's like investigating deeds of Gandalf the Gray....

.

please send some maths and physics :D .

When the most logical explanation is that we adapted to the environment.

You are absolutely correct that the big bang theory has alot of evidence. That is where Gods existence comes into play. Up to 500 billion galaxies with 300 sextillion stars and another 300 sextillion planets all condensed into a 2 mm little space known as a singularity. Good luck proving that all that matter could fit into a space that small without devine intervention.

Good luck proving it did. Which is more likely?

If what you said was absolutely true then the big bang would not be widely accepted nor under further scientific study. If the average Joe could open a textbook, read a couple laws and disprove it don't you think it wouldve been done the day after the theory emerged? Point is, I don't need to dispute you or provide evidence. I could, but the mere fact that it is still a solid, accepted theory backed by sufficient evidence means that the evidence for it exists and Therfore it is reasonable to accept it.

Now I get what your saying and the big bang does not say how the matter and light and quantum forces became condensed in "the beginning". That does not however, translate to just throwing up our hands and saying "well we cant explain it so therefore god mustve done it". That's thoughtless and ignorant. Science threw god away in 1850. What god is is a non answer to questions. An excuse to accept a lack of explaination. That's not what science nor humanity as a whole should use.

Also I'll dispute you're idea that god created singularity. We know how the big bang works and I'm assuming you do too. The quantum gravitational pull and forces, matter colliding reactions yada yada yada. Those are all natural processes. Now I ask, if some cosmic being did exist that possessed the power to spawn universes, create life, and defy physics, then why would he need to use natural processes to create the universe? And even the bible disputes this idea as well as just plain lack of evidence and the illogicality of the theory as a whole.

Buddy here's how it goes. I can't disprove god. I know this. I do not claim there is no god because of this. The worlds top scientists can't disprove god. He is unobservable and untestable so we can't. Now, you along with any other theist can't PROVE god either. You can't for the same reasons. So the only thing we can do ATM is take stances on which side is more likely. An educated guess if you will. Now this is determined by evidence. I think you'll agree that it is most logical to side with the side that has the MOST evidence supporting it. There is more evidence against god's existence than for him. That is fact. I've been all over the Internet, books, ect. I've looked at the top theist supporters points and still there is not enough. Most of it isnt even proving gods existence but supplying how he could possibly could exist. Proposing scenarios and whatnot while not actually stating facts... That being said I suggest you take another look at your faith. Look at the facts. Use your brain for critical analysis instead of your heart for blind belief.

Fuck it I'll dispute the laws.

The zeroth law is simply the transitive property in relation to multiple systems. This doesn't apply to the beginning of matter existing or coming into existence because there wasnt multiple systems in existence.. Its simply if system A has the same temp as system B, and system B has the same temp as C. Then A has the same temp as C.

The first law only applies to a closed system, we don't know whether before time was closed or not. Hell we don't even know if there ever was a time where matter didn't exist so this only applies if we find that it was a closed system before matter. Which we never will...

The second law states that two systems in close relation to one another will spontaneously reach thermal equilibrium. Doesn't really apply...

The third says something similar pertaining to declining temperatures.

So yeah I dont know where you were going with that. I'm no scientist but I really fail to see how any of that applies let alone disputes the big bang or creation of the universe.