As for our universe evolving out of substances that had no first cause-- no reputable scientist says that. The cause of the big bang is simply an unknown. But something caused it. They level of mystery is no different from the mystery of God existing as a first cause without beginning, end, or explanation.

The big bang is not that crazy of an idea-- even if it is wrong. You just have to understand a small amount of the science that points to that idea. The big bang may not be what started our universe, but the idea is a worthwhile one to consider.

The sun releases it's tremendous amount of energy due to fusion. Hydrogen atoms are fused into heavier elements. This process causes the atoms to release a tremendous amount of energy (E=mc^2 is at work here). The light and heat from the sun comes because elements are being created right there in the sun.

Massive amounts of energy converts into mass when it cools. So imagine a release of energy infinitesimally larger than our sun. If our sun can create all the elements in the periodic table just through nuclear fusion, then a massive release of energy can create the building blocks of atoms.

If such an explosion happened, the radiation from it would still be present today. And back in the 1960's, Bell Labs was doing an experiment with satellites. They ran into a lot of static interference and couldn't explain why. At the same time, scientists were exploring the beginnings of the big band hypothesis. When they heard about what Bell Labs was dealing with, they investigated. That background static is the radiation left over from a large release of energy-- just like what they figured the "big bang" would cause. The scientists predicted the background radiation-- the guys at Bell Labs accidentally found it independently. All scientists involved-- including those at Bell Labs-- received a Nobel Prize in physics.

So, something exploded billions of years ago. I will admit however, why and how it happened is still a great mystery.

My problem has never been, “Is there a God?”
My problem has always been, “What is He like?”

I think one of the primary causes of atheism is Christianity’s doctrine of everlasting suffering for everyone who dies without becoming a Christian. I would rather live out my life as an agnostic, and try to treat everyone the same way that I would like to be treated by them, and hope for the best in the next life, than try to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever.

That is why I am glad there is evidence that God is not like that, e.g.
http://www.godfire.net/eby/circularity.html

Wow! I love that line!

I assume you consider yourself an atheist or at least an agnostic, is this a correct assumption? If so, why have you come to this conclusion? Or better said, "belief"?

And please elaborate on why you feel it necessary to save those pesky Christians from themselves.

The Big Lie of the Big-3 Monster-theisms:
Skeptics cannot undermine beliefs which require spiritual insight to believe!

The Big Lie exemplifies a classic logical failure called an "immunizing strategy." Only a believer can understand another believer’s beliefs. It is a form of begging the question -- presupposing without proof the very point at issue.

An immunizing strategy amounts to deflecting away every request for reasoning outside the charmed circle of language which only a believer could use.

But, one pays dearly when immunizing a belief from criticism. It cuts off rational communication. The immunizer gives up the right to be classed as a “reasonable person” — in the common sense meaning used by courts of law.

You cannot respond rationally to critics by saying that only those who are with me can understand what I have to say. There must be some starting point in a discourse common to believer and to critic. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be talked about.

Now you know why a xian “conversion” sales job has always begun with purportedly “absurd” or "paradoxical" claims to induce belief. And to a rational ancient Greek nothing was more conceptually contradictory than a "god on a cross."

Ultimately, xianity cannot be refuted; it can only be dismantled. The de-deification of culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.

anti-supernaturalist

Not-so-intellectual believers are more concrete. "God make coincidences." I learned that from a recovering alcoholic. I also learned that a "higher power" can be anything. It was suggested to me that I could call a door knob a "higher power" if I wanted. The justification for belief in any higher power was this question: "Are you the most powerful person on earth? No? Well, then, there is a higher power." (I tried really hard not to roll my eyeballs.)

And, of course, every argument with a devoted believer ends with, "It says so in the Bible."

To that, I roll my eyeballs.

You have a potential winning argument here. I'm not sure whether or not Greeks were more numerous than Hebrews during the classical era, so assume you chose Ra or Amon instead of Zeus. I guess even your theologian won't deny that 3000 years ago, Egyptians were many times more numerous than Hebrews,

Point out to your theologian that even if his argument was valid, it would necessarily be within a limited timeframe - since belief in Yahveh only outperformed belief in the ancient Egyptian pantheon less than 2000 years ago.