I swear, I just need to make a journal with this in it, and link people to it over and over.
You can't prove existential negatives. You can't "prove" that God doesn't exist... but neither can you prove that SANTA doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it's reasonable or logical to believe in God, any more than it is to do so in Santa. Negatives are assumed until positives are evidenced. It's the rational way.
Nor can you prove they do exist. If you can do neither there is no profound basis for refutation.
Furthermore, there's no difference between "I do not believe that there is a god" and "I do believe that there is not a god," aka "I don't believe in God." They're the same thing. There's no difference between not believing and believing not.
How does this pertain to my comments?
As far as you can tell, it just ain't true. God is not a testable scientific hypothesis one can disprove. There's no actual evidence, so it's not reasonable to believe in God.
That's what "faith" means - believing something without proof/factual evidence. If there is no disproof either then there is very little basis for refutation. The scientific approach can only be taken so far with regards to human beliefs and actions, seeing as how most decisions are based on knowledge and theory.
A "ball of matter" didn't just appear, and nothing actually exploded, by the way.
I suck at Physics - if you want to elaborate on this I guess it'd be informative (thanks in advance). However, in layman's terms the term 'explosion' comes to mind and seems to be used when referring to the Big Bang.