The problem here is that you're comparing something like 2+2=4 with the existence of God or the big bang. 2+2=4 is empirical verifiable data, God and the big bang arent. So you CHOOSE to believe in either God or the big bang by the way you interpret the different pieces of clues found in nature.
2+2 is based on mathematics, it is more by definition than "emperical".
God and the BB are
very different. We may both agree on sets of data that we can both observe that are, perhaps, supporting of the idea of a god or the BB.
Then we need an idea of what could explain the observed data. That is where the idea of a god and the BB become very, very different. The god idea never proves to be checkable in anyway, it never leads to any further ideas to investigate, it never makes predictions that are different and separate it from alternative explanations.
The BB idea makes various predictions about what we should see if we research, it allows for ways of showing it to be wrong and it has undergone modification when it shows itself wrong. It made predictions that separated it from the steady state theory.
The two ideas for explaning things in the natural world are very different indeed. Though neither are particularly comparable to 2+2.
If someone wishes to question or disagree with the god idea there seems to be no way to determine who is right or wrong. That is why centuries go by with different groups making different assertions about the nature of the god and with no resolution.
With any ideas that are, like the BB, scientific there is a way to determine which are right (or at least the best available) and which are clearly wrong. That is why, though it might take a long time, we do settle arguments in science. The BB and steady state ideas being an example of that.