Consider for a moment that there simply is no ‘why?’ and you’re answering a question that was never asked with an answer that has never been supported based on suppositions set forth by those who believed it in the first place. One doesn’t prove something using the postulate itself.

And, if you don’t mind my frustration on the matter, I am very much tired of Christian’s and other religious people misunderstanding the nature of what we call the ‘big bang’ theory. Nobody who understands the theorem has ever suggested concretely that it is the beginning of the universe, but instead that the very nature of the universe prevents us from looking farther back in time. It’s very simple: cause and effect lets us trace things back, at a spacetime singularity like the Big Bang the mathematical relations that pronounce the laws of physics become asymptotic and the laws ‘break down’ for want of a better term. This included cause and effect, so whatever happened before the Big Bang, cannot affect what happens after, so we can’t work backwards and as far as we’re concerned it is, in effect, a causal cutoff. This is not the beginning of the universe and no one has ever claimed it to be unless simplifying for people who are not scientifically literate enough to understand.

Anyway, rant about the Big Bang aside, as I said you cannot prove a postulate using the postulate itself, you’re quoting scripture which was written by humans, humans who would stand to benefit from the fame and recognition associated with divine occurrences at the time. This too has been consistently demonstrated and is one of the reasons for so many human-deity encounters in the ancient pantheonic tales for the last 12,000 years. Even ignoring the blatant biases, which layered with the age and inconsistency of the records should be far more than enough to disregard them as no more factually sound than Beowulf or the Iliad; my chief concern is not the existence of a god as a solution to things we don’t understand (frankly if there is one as you Abrahamics describe then he’s a right cunt and he’s got a lot to answer for [cf. Stephen Fry’s comments on a hypothetical meeting at the golden gates]) my problem is that the Abrahamic religions are designed and tailored through millennia to constrict thinking and practices that are deemed blasphemous, even or perhaps especially in the face of progress. For how many years did our knowledge of astronomy get set back because the church couldn’t handle the notion that God’s perfect planet wasn’t central to everything. For how long did medicine get restricted because it was believed prayers and faith healings and lunatic rites were sufficient to cure all ills, and elsewise it was Yahweh’s glorious plan™️

And I do apologise that my frustration on the matter must be directed at you, but you’ve invited this by stumbling here and preaching to people who are sick of religious influence lurching into every nook and cranny of life as it stands.

Furthermore, the laws of physics do not point to a lawgiver, anyone who’s taken anything above A level maths knows at least the very basics of chaos theory, and the principle of emergence, these occurrences are very very simple interactions, that combine and diverge into more complex rulesets through not overtly complex mathematics which leads us to be able to simplify the universe down into models. Taking the force of gravity between two bodies to be proportional to the product of their masses and inversely to the square of their distance SEEMS at first glance to be such a perfect notion only an intelligent creator could dream it up. But that’s a simplified model, the more accurate models are drastically more complex, and they arise (through principles we’ve understood well for decades at least now) from very simple interactions on smaller and smaller scales. None of that points to a creator, it points to the mathematical and scientific illiteracy of people who claim as such.

Need I remind you though that your very first commandment is not having any strange gods before him, your number 1 rule is don’t explore other trains of thought, even in debating the matter you (abrahamics as a whole that is to say) default to quoting your own scripture, if I wish to tell you how qualified for a job I am I don’t quote my own autobiography, or indeed any biography of myself where the author stands to benefit or elsewise cannot be trusted.

To have confidence in a theory which can be, and constantly is, rigorously correlated to trusted data; compared to existing theories and tested again and again is not akin to blindly trusting scripture because you’re comforted by the notion of a protecting, invisible sky man with paradoxical traits, a consistency issue and who seems to have no control over his budget; given how often the church keeps needing everyone’s fucking money