Two, that science will one day definitely find out how the universe came to be. Not knowing something for certain isn't adequate reasoning for scientists to simply give up searching. The journey is as important as the destination, even if our destination is a big sign saying "err, we're not quite sure just yet".
I don't think we can ever find out how the universe came to be.
Think it like that we are a result of a mathematical operation (which, technically we are as all science and existence can be presented mathematically).
Now, let's say the result ("us and our universe and all the being") is two.
2.
The operation is how we (in this example, "2") came to be.
Now what operation results in us, "2"?
1*2?
ln(e^2)?
2/1?
2^1?
√(4)?
1+1?
3-1?
4-2?
5-3?
etc.
There are infinite possible operations that result in two. As in any operation, the result alone isn't adequate to find out what the operation and its operatives were.
Now, we, our universe and the whole existence are just the result, we cannot possibly find out what was "in the beginning".
But is it even necessary to know something like that?
You believe that you know. Belief is not evidence of reality.
ADo I believe in the Big Bang theory, or similar such "creation of the known" theories? Yes, sort of.
That's already erroneous, SlipZtrEm, science is not to be believed in. There are facts that just are, and models (theories) that are proven because of the facts - they need and must not be believed in because they are. Then, there are models (theories) that aren't proven because they either lack the necessary proof (not enough facts to support them) or try to prove themselves - they are just hypotheses. These shall never be believed in, as belief in unproven theories hinders the advance of science by making people stick to what they believe disregarding possible evidence of other possibilities. Science is all about questioning things, not believing.
That is the fundamental difference between science and religion. The first has facts that are, and the latter is all about belief. Sadly though, most people
believe in what the scientists throw to them, even though they are just hypotheses. That's the problem of older scientists too, they start believing in their own hypotheses and close their eyes from other possibilities - hence why younger scientists who aren't yet bound by the existing hypotheses make the most important findings.
Hence the scientific stance to God's existence is "just a hypothesis until proven". No "doesn't exist", because we cannot know for sure (there aren't enough facts to support that God doesn't exist, neither there are enough to support that God exists).
If you knowingly say God doesn't exist it is as much belief/faith as saying that God exists. Though, God's possible existence doesn't have to be taken into account in science, because it stands just as an unproven hypothesis. Science doesn't need God (at least not at its current state as God is unproven), but it doesn't necessarily rule God out.
However belief is completely fine as long as it's not brought into science, in personal views that is.
Haven't we already gone through all this? Seriously, almost any possible argument against and for has been used here.
The understanding that miracles could take place (breaking of the natural law) to name one and the get out card that he would not need to be limited to laws and rules he created for us to live under unless he so chose to limit himself but that itself is debatable in the Christian circle. Remember that a transcendent being isn't out in space somewhere fiddling his thumbs bound by these things but removed from such limitations.
Tomato ketchup man! 
