Just for the sake of promoting a contrary argument to your statements, science tends to lean in favor of explanations that are parsimonious. An explanation of the origins of our universe consisting of a spontaneous popping into existence out of nothingness is not parsimonious. Everything else we can so far observe we (reasonably) believe to have a causal event directly relating to its current existence even if we do not yet have an explanation. It's more reasonable to say there was a causal event for the universe than to say there wasn't one—just to add, the big bang was not the causal event of the universe; in fact, the big bang occurred shortly <i>after</i> the beginning of the universe if that theory is correct.

Of course, even though I say science tends to lend itself to more parsimonious explanations I would be destroying my argument by trying to make an argument for a higher power with science in mind since science relies on observation to draw conclusions. We cannot observe the beginning of the universe so science will never have a rock-solid answer for our universe's origins and as such we must look to philosophy for acceptable explanations. Though, since your argument is predicated on a scientific explanation for the universe I'm referencing parsimonious explanations to structure my argument.

So, to say that the universe just spontaneously popped into existence and the big bang happened shortly afterward and that's it; full stop. It just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not religious but to say that belief in a higher power fades the more you learn misses the mark a bit. I believe that a higher being of some sort creating the universe is slightly more believable than the universe coming into existence out of nothing given my explanation above. Of course, I could be wrong but my point remains that you cannot firmly rule out the existence of a higher being even after much learning. In fact, the more I learn the more complicated the matter becomes.