-_-
Big bang/Big crunch theories settle it for me, for now at least. I'm sure I'll look into it a bit more. One thing's certain, it was no "god".
one can only be truely certain with proof. 
And thats exactly why I don't believe in a God. Sorry guys, but a two-thousand year old book isn't really what I'd call proof.
And if the Bible's anything to go by, I wouldn't be writing here. I'd be out in the street stoning gays.
So basically yeah, I think that the Big Bang is the most accurate theory out there as of yet. Recent research shows that a Big Crunch is unlikely. The parallel universe theory also makes a lot of sense.
I'm not targeting Sistersharp here but it's easier to quote this quote then quote the different ones in this thread. I'm not here to debate whether or not God exists. I'm just here to say that if someone says God does not exist without proof then how is it different than he does exist without proof? I remember seeing a movie one time and it hit the nail on the head for this kind of comment. Let's say you love someone that is no longer living, how can you prove you love them? Who says what act shows love and what doesn't?
If you want to bring science into it then look no further than the bee. Scientists still can't understand how the bee can fly. It shouldn't be able to fly. Since the scientist can't find the reason does that mean the bee can't fly? Before anyone pulls the "God isn't real because there's no proof" you need to think about things like this.
I'm not sure what the truth is but I look at it this way, there had to be a starting point. Let's say you believe the big bang theory, where did the planets (rocks) come from? Where did anything come from? Well, you'll find out when you die and unfortunately you more than likely won't be coming back to say who was right.