TootGuitar

Also, your god vs. universe that started existing out of nothing (which isn't a thing) argument is a false dichotomy.

Also,

Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

For a given proposition, I don't think it makes any sense to use "does it add anything to the discussion" as a criterion for dismissing it. The OP is asking about other claims of supernatural entities, which are simliar to gods at least in terms of their supernatural qualities. You don't just get to dismiss them. So, rephrasing the OP's question: given that you have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of deities and unicorns, why do you believe in one but not the other?

Not collecting stamps is still collecting something.

Every single one of the things you mentioned are claims, not evidence. Maybe I can rephrase my question:

When I buy a delicious Share Size Snickers bar at the 7-11, I see on the package that it claims that the bar weighs 3.86 ounces. It feels a little light to me; I am skeptical of the fact that this particular Share Size Snickers bar weighs what it claims on the package. My options are:

1. Take the weight printed on the package as the truth and don't question it any further;
2. Put the bar on a scale and measure its weight independently, to confirm whether the weight is correct.

With regard to religion, you appear to be doing only #1, and I'm asking how I can do #2. What are the tools and evidence I can use, akin to the scale, that are independent of the religious text (= the Snickers wrapper) and can show me that your claims are valid?

Please point to a scientific hypothesis or theory that claims that the universe "started existing out of nothing."

What is your Spirit? Can you describe its properties and offer some evidence to show the rest of us that it exists? How do you know you received an answer to your prayers? How might someone else replicate this experience?

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.