By the same logic God must have had a 'cause' and then you are stuck in an infinite loop. I can't claim to understand all the science that has been thought up to explain this, but I think it has a better basis than imaginary beings. People can believe what they want if it makes them happy, but trust science to actually get results.
Peace
These thoughts must be considered. In the end, perhaps they simply lead to more questions. But they can be addressed initially.
The argument of creationists is that there is one original originator. Science would back up that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. The opposite also stands true - for every reaction, there must be an equal and opposite action. Creation is some form of reaction.
There is a sense in which any perspective must be circular. For deists, this circle always returns to God, even if they embrace some form of the big bang and evolution. For creationists, it's more obvious that the circle embraces God. For the atheist, the circle must at some point embrace chance and accident. The position that not creator can exist must rely on all "creation" being a huge accident, which makes each one of us an accident as well.
Science depends upon laws so that it can answer the questions about what we see. It's limited and bound within these laws. When it offers a hypotheses that defies the laws of order, eventually the hypothesis dies.
With creation/evolution/big-bang/ex-nihilo arguments, there is no reference for us. There is no example. Scientists attempt to come up with ideas, but none of them are provable. And every single hypothesis that explains away creation ex nihilo has a counter argument that is, at the very least, every bit as valid.
Science will never give us all the answers. We shouldn't expect it to. It can't tell us when the soul starts to exist. Neither can the Bible. All we know is that it does exist. Science can't mend a broken heart or comfort the downtrodden. Only love can. And no creature on earth can love like a human - those created to bear the image of their Creator.
Everyone depends on science. For the creationists, science is a wonderful opportunity to study what God has done. And they see the order and consistencies of what God has done as a reflection of who He is.
Both Dawkins and Bill Nye have gone on record as claiming that God does not exist. Both have admitted that there has to be some form of originator for life on earth. But they both suspect that it's some form of alien. So, on one hand, you have a group of people with a written record about creation that can't possibly be right (even though it is central to the study of history - is history a science?) and on the other men deny this written record and come up with "imaginary beings" to explain doing so. Of course, they don't have any evidence of their existence or even bother to postulate on where these aliens came from, other than that they must come from an even more intelligent being. This begs what should be the obvious question, "Which takes more faith?"
"The argument of creationists is that there is one original originator. Science would back up that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction."
False, cause and effect would just mean this originator requires a cause as well. The second you try and break this chain of infinite regress you are committing special pleading. You must invalidate the concept of cause and effect to make any argument for an uncaused cause.
If your god can exist without being created then the universe can exist without being created.
"For the atheist, the circle must at some point embrace chance and accident. "
False, you are arguing against a straw man. Please stop mandating what opponents to your reasoning must think as some sort of framework on which to prop up your own god hypothesis. It's very telling that you seem entirely unable to do this.
God is not the default answer and won't be proven true by proving something else wrong. You are approaching this from a fallacious angle.
At this point I'm not sure how to explain this to you without you complaining that I'm being condescending. You just keep making the same fallacious argument from ignorance. Say something related to the two major points I wrote about in the post. If you continue to respond here and keep repeating this fallacious line of argument I will respond with actual condescension and mockery.
Maybe
Thanks @noganoo. I offered another response in this thread too. Hopefully it's helpful.