Asklemmy

One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term "beginning." The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it's a bit nuanced, but it's really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I'm aware of that claims it hasn't.

Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)

Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.