The point that the GP was attempting to make here is that your entire thesis is predicated on the assumption of God's existence without ever dealing with why this is a valid assumption to make.
The assumption, in and of itself, is not problematic to me, but it's an a priori assumption; that is to say that it can never be validated by our experience of this universe. So it could be correct, or it could be incorrect. You have faith to guide you, but I, and many others like me on /., do not possess your faith thus are incredulous of your assumptions.
And I think Occam's Razor applies to your final statement; is a "prime mover" really the simplest answer to the big bang? I'm inclined to believe that there is an explainable source of the Universe's start and to me, the prime mover is unnecessary. Maybe I'm wrong...