One of the reasons I believe there is a God

[Annuit Coeptis]

"Virtually zero" and zero (for real) are not one in the same. It's a huge leap of logic -- and, indeed, a flaw in it -- to jump from one to the other so readily.

Virtual zero means that there is a very minute chance of a certain outcome, so small of a chance that the actual possibility is said to be zero. The problem with differentiating the two is where do you draw the line? What actually has a zero chance of happening? For every outcome of anything I can make up some absurd explanation that has very little chance and little to no evidence. Besides, how does differentiating the difference between virtual zero and actual zero prove any of what I said to be false? It doesn't. It just differentiates the difference between virtual zero and actual zero.

Just because you can't comprehend the size and scale of the Universe, doesn't mean it doesn't operate according to rational laws...

I agree with you. I cannot truly grasp the size and complexity of this universe. I never said that this world doesn't operate according to rational laws. I believe that the world adheres to rational laws and that is only the more reason to believe in a rational designer.

Throwing God out as an explanation only serves to show man's limited capacity for understanding things bigger than he.

I also agree with this statement. There are plenty of Darwinists who cannot allow God as an explanation of anything because they have a prior commitment to materialism. This is absurd because they presuppose that God cannot be an explanation and thus choose not to believe what there is evidence for, nor do they want to even begin to review the evidence. This is the willful blindness that I mentioned in previous posts.

A lot of the things that have been said in this thread are ignorant and stupid, but good God, this is quite honestly one of the most retarded things I've seen on this site yet. That isn't the etymology for "religion" at all.

Don't use retarded in that context please.
I never said that ritual was the etymology of the word religion. Read the post where I said that more carefully and you will see.

I have a degree in Physics, and I can confidentally say that there was something before the big bang. There's lots of other knowledge on Quantum, black holes, matter and antimatter that would suggest other ideas based on the big bang theory.

Okay, I should rephrase: Most physicists and I agree that there was nothing before the big bang. I am not trying to discredit the work you put into getting your degree in physics but you cannot make the claim that time existed because something existed on the quantum level before the big bang. Einstein's relativity explains the universe on a large scale, Quantum mechanics explains stuff on the atomic level. Thus the laws of Einsteins relativity do not need to apply to quantum theory.
But that is beside the point. From what I know of today's physics, information cannot travel through a singularity; no matter what happened "before" the big bang, we can’t detect any evidence from that point, so our knowledge of it is severely limited. Any hypothesis regarding history prior to the big bang is fundamentally untestable, there is no evidence for it, only speculation.

Laws weren't created by the universe, they were created by man, who's to say that they are right or wrong?

You are a man. You invented the law of "the laws of man are not necessarily true." Who's to say that that law is true?

That is definitely untrue, matter itself is usable to create energy. Matter itself isn't required as an immediate source of energy. Nuclear Fission, and Fusion for example. Fission is a chain reaction, which requires little assists to keep it going, however Fusion is not, although it does provide a more effective way of producing energy in larger quantities.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy in this universe is constant, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You said that matter itself is usable to create energy. That is false based on the first law. However what I think you meant to say was that matter can be turned back into energy. That is true, but when one form of energy changes to another form of energy it does not revert back to the original form of energy. This introduces another law, the law of entropy. The universe has a natural tendency to put things in a disorder. Thus the initial form of energy cannot be turned back into the other form of energy. It requires a cause. If I am at the top of a hill with a wagon, the wagon has gravitational potential energy (one of the many forms of energy). When I push the wagon down the hill the gravitational potential turns into kinetic energy. However the kinetic energy is not going to bring the wagon back up the hill because that requires me to go down and drag it back up (cause). The wagon can never restore the kinetic energy to it's potential all the way because of the law of efficiency.

What is God then, and how, and what created him to begin with since he couldn't exist all of a sudden or go back infinitely. You can't avoid the never-ending cycle backwards in time when you think of it logically.

Nothing created god. The creator of the universe has no beginning. The reason why you are having trouble understanding this is, well, because you are human (which is perfectly normal and understandable), and because you are presupposing that God existed after time came to be. God created the space-time and is not subject to it. I already believe there is a God and I can't even grasp the concept of infinity. How can anyone?

Trying to explain god to a human is like trying to explain to an ant how a television works.