Then tell me your " science " , can the science answer all . Even in front of the nature science cannot do anything. 

Then by  " LOGIC " you refuse to accept that something cannot exist without a "Cause ". Because everything in "reality " that is exist are because of something happen. If your self by your own believe dont believe with and entity that is Creator or the one who ignite or created or made it , then your self refuse. 

It not a matter of who can answer or who cannot answer is just a "Logic " of something that is exist need to be by a cause. 

But that irrefutable logic gets to be thrown out when it comes to that cause itself when you say it's a Creator. That's why this argument seems so disingenuous is you say that obviously since everything we've ever seen happen had a cause that the universe itself must have had a cause and that cause is a god who for some reason doesn't need to have a cause even though we just went over how everything had to have a cause. For those who are more scientifically inclined it just doesn't make any sense to forego all logic the second it pertains to this cause you want to claim the universe had to have. 

Then tell me other alternative if it's not something , some entity , then who or what ??? 

When you don't know what causes something the answer is simple: I don't know. Coming up with magical solutions to a problem is not actually any better than "I don't know" and the latter is a lot more honest in my view. 

And again, if everything needs to have a cause, then what caused this entity? You haven't figured out a solution to the problem, you've only created a new one. 

I am agree we don't know "the process " but we can agree "  there is something " that initiate thing and create. Because "it's impossible " for  an intelligent creation exist without an intelligent designer. 

That's not how logic works. you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic and reason work and that is why it is so hard to have a conversation with theists. 

The real question that needs to be answered is: Where did the God Myth come from? What instigated it? What started the whole idea of the abrahamic god? I ask because if you go from a scientific perspective with today's modern methods, no train of reason leads to a God. God has never come down from upon high to declare his presence to us, no events have directed us toward a divine being, and nothing is without explanation. If you take God out of the equation (As a historical figure or the legacy of mythology he has surrounding him), you would never come to the conclusion that everything is governed by a sentient, omnipotent, divine being. The only thing that makes you legitimately believe in a God is that God has been such an integral part of society for so long that the idea has long since been ingrained in our collective consciousness. 

Yet, from the level of science or psychology, the belief in a God is no more mature or rational than the child who has an imaginary friend or the adult who hears voices. You'll argue to the contrary - because of course you will - but that is the unadulterated truth. You believe something without any proof to back it up, and the closest you have to a counter-argument is a philosophical loophole created by the clergy to magically win any argument. (The idea that god is responsible for everything and he works in mysterious ways or that he otherwise doesn't have to abide by our laws of science/physics/logic). 

And again, the burden of proof is on theists. Atheists aren't out to ruin your worldview or take God away from you, Atheists just don't see any proof to support the existence of God despite the thousands of years theists have had to provide it. Atheists never made the claim 'there is no god' until theists made the claim that there was and failed to prove it. There was no such thing as an atheist until there were theists; therefore, the burden of proof is on Theists. I do not understand how you don't get that. 

That's not how logic works. you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic and reason work and that is why it is so hard to have a conversation with theists. 

The real question that needs to be answered is: Where did the God Myth come from? What instigated it? What started the whole idea of the abrahamic god? I ask because if you go from a scientific perspective with today's modern methods, no train of reason leads to a God. God has never come down from upon high to declare his presence to us, no events have directed us toward a divine being, and nothing is without explanation. If you take God out of the equation (As a historical figure or the legacy of mythology he has surrounding him), you would never come to the conclusion that everything is governed by a sentient, omnipotent, divine being. The only thing that makes you legitimately believe in a God is that God has been such an integral part of society for so long that the idea has long since been ingrained in our collective consciousness. 

Yet, from the level of science or psychology, the belief in a God is no more mature or rational than the child who has an imaginary friend or the adult who hears voices. You'll argue to the contrary - because of course you will - but that is the unadulterated truth. You believe something without any proof to back it up, and the closest you have to a counter-argument is a philosophical loophole created by the clergy to magically win any argument. (The idea that god is responsible for everything and he works in mysterious ways or that he otherwise doesn't have to abide by our laws of science/physics/logic). 

And again, the burden of proof is on theists. Atheists aren't out to ruin your worldview or take God away from you, Atheists just don't see any proof to support the existence of God despite the thousands of years theists have had to provide it. Atheists never made the claim 'there is no god' until theists made the claim that there was and failed to prove it. There was no such thing as an atheist until there were theists; therefore, the burden of proof is on Theists. I do not understand how you don't get that. 

Of course, I can't answer that. And neither can you.  You can claim to have an answer, but a claim requires justification, which I'm sure you won't be able to provide.