I believe that God is real based off of the evidence that shows it. Similarly to how faith works: Aethists claim that science explains the why, which it does, but it doesn't explain HOW things came into existence. The claim that the Big Bang brought everything into existence is questionable because that theory shows something coming out of nothing, which we know to be physically impossible.

You've just overlooked that we have data points that point toward a transcendent creator, this begins with 20th-century astrophysics which empirically establish that space, time, and matter had a definitive beginning 13.8 billion years ago. This logically requires a transcendent cause outside of itself. If you have space and time but no matter what would you put in space? If you have space and matter but no time, WHEN would you put the matter you have in space? The very FIRST verse of the Bible answers this beautifully: "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (matter) and the earth (space)". As a matter of fact, to have all of these three things in one place at one time, you need a Creator that's outside of it that can control it. Furthermore, modern physics has actually uncovered that fundamental constants of nature are calibrated with quantifiabe, mathematical precision SO EXACT that altering them by even a trillionth of a percent would yield a lifeless cosmos. Therefore, that empirical data shows an intentional mind rather than a random chance. Finally, molecular biology reveals that living organisms run on a vast, complex digital code in DNA, because complex specified information invariably originates from a conscious intelligence in every other human experience, the presence of this sophisticated information code provides positive empirical backing for an intelligent, beyond-space-and-time creator.

When you concede that the origin of the universe is an unresolved puzzle, do you acknowledge a profound epistemic limit? And with your argument that a transcendent cause is a mere "argument from ignorance" you've overlooked the difference between an arbitary placeholder and a logically necessitated solution. When science traces physical reality back to its absolute beginning, the mystery is not merely a gap in current data, but rather a categorical barrier: because space, time, and matter cannot produce themselves from a non-existence without violating causality, the originating cause must necessarily transcend the physical framework it creates. When you demand a physical mechanism for an immaterial, timeless being you show you don't understand the definition of a first cause, which by necessity must be uncaused and non-physical to anchor the entire chain of contingent reality. Rather than invoking "magic," positing an intentional mind provides a coherent explanation for how abstract mathematical laws, fine-tuned constants, and concrete existence could arise from nothing, whereas a purely materialistic stance has reduced the ultimate origin of all order to an unguided, unexplained accident.

Your appeal to dark matter and dark energy as evidence of our ignorance has actually reinforced the fine-tuning argument, because the precise values governing these mysterious phenomena are themselves breaktakingly dialed in. Far from being random or neutral placeholders, the cosmological constant is famously fined-tuned to one part in $10^{120}$, meaning that if it were altered by an infinitesimal margin, the universe would have either violently expanded and prevented star formation or collapsed back in on itself immediately. Similarly, the balance of dark matter to ordinary matter is calibrated with microscopic precision to allow galaxies and life-supporting structures to cohere; thus when you point out that 96% of the universe is mysterious, it doesn't dismiss design but it reveals that the hidden, foundational architecture of reality operates on mathematical tolerances so exquisite they demand an intentional, creative source.

Pointing to my earlier points, effects resemble their causes. When we look at the usiverse, we don't just look at random chaos or a blank slate. We look ata reality defined by profound mathematical order, logical laws, and fine-tuned precision. No one on earth can fine-tune every minute detail to the last ounce because it's simply impossible for humans, with a finite understanding, to do. Furthermore, an unguided, mindless physical process, like blinde quantum fluctuation or a mindless multiverse generator has no inherent capacity to generate conceptual truths, mathematical elegance, or purposeful design, something that an infinitely knowing creator who is outside of time and space can do. Just as a book requires an author, a computer program requires a programmer, and a building requires an architect, a universe characterized by rational structure requires a rational source. Therefore, my argument that the universe points to a conscious creator isn't a random guess or a "gap" filler; it's the logical conclusion that an effect with the hallmark of intelligence must ultimately come from an intelligent mind.