Incorrect, but I agree that is sometimes the ignorant thinking of those who happen to have blind faith.
I'd be interested for you to expand on this. I struggle to see where the metaphysical, conceptual God first into the narrative of the formation of the universe at all.
I'll answer, in a roundabout way, to the best of my agnostic abilities.
First of all, let us clear what a serious theologian means by God. God is most certainly not the supreme instance of the category or genus of Being, nor can be located in any genus at all; God is not considered ens sumo, the highest being, but considered rather as ipsum esse subsistens, the sheer act of "to be" itself. God is considered as that great ocean of existence from which the world in its entirety comes; not something within the world, but the condition for the possibility of the world.
Let me explain, beyond faith and the words of Jesus of Nazareth, the theologian’s argument, from contingency, for God's existence — I think it's a way not just to understand how they believe that God exists, but what they mean when they say God. By contingency, I mean realities that are not self-explanatory; realities that don't contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. You and I are contingent because we're breathing, we eat and drink, we had parents; our being is not self-explanatory, it comes from other causes. If that's the case, we have to look to an intrinsic cause to explain our own existence. Suppose those intrinsic causes themselves are contingent, as is the case with our parents, the food we eat and the air we breathe — they too came from other causes, they too are conditioned by things extrinsic to themselves. Looking further, this process of appealing to contingent causes, trying to explain my contingency, can not go on indefinitely, becuase if it does, I've explained nothing at all, I've simply infinitely postponed explanation. This process must end in some reality which is not contingent, whose very nature it is to be — ipsum esse, being itself. This is what serious believers mean by God. God is not considered one fussy cause among many or one element within a mechanistic system, but rather the answer to the question, "What finally explains contingent reality?"
There's a common scientific mistake of identifying this cause of causes with matter or energy or the ever fluctuating, expanding and contracting universe itself, but it simply leaves the question begging. If the cause of causes, or the unconditioned ground of contingency, is matter, you're in a conundrum. Why? Because matter, by it's very nature, is in one state rather than another, it's here rather than there, it's this colour rather than that, it's this condition rather than that; matter is categorised by potentiality. Think of our own body or this laptop that I type on, it's in one particular material configuration, but it could be in another one — I could burn it into ashes, I could colour it differently, I could move it from place to place. Therefore, we have to explain why it is in this configuration; it is not self-explanatory in this configuration, therefore we have to appeal to an extrinsic cause. The same is true of energy, because energy is in some state, some configuration, some manner of being, but it could be in another. Therefore, we have to invoke an extrinsic cause to explain why it's this case rather than that. Likewise, to appeal to the endlessly fluctuating or expanding or contracting universe as a whole, is now that problem writ large. Why is the universe expanding rather than contracting? Why is it contracting rather than expanding? Why is the fluctuating vacuum in this state of fluctuation rather than that? To appeal to matter or energy is to appeal to something that is by its very nature contingent. What you finally come to is some reality that is radically other than the universe, which could even be in principle measured by the sciences. And here is the point: the claim that the sciences can adjudicate the question of God is in itself ludicrous. Philosophy can shed some light on God so construed, but the one thing the sciences can never do is eliminate the possibility of God, or disprove God in any way — those who claim otherwise are guilty of a scientistic mistake.
The "New Atheists" think that with the advance of the sciences, religion retreats to ever smaller parts of intellectual turf — no it does not. This is not a zero sum game nor a battle between equals, it's addressing reality in entirely different levels. The advance of the sciences can never threat authentic religion. It's ridiculous to say, "produce evidence for God." You cannot use the scientific method to get at questions of God, it's simply a category error.
So, how does a theologian get at the true God? Authentic religion will often begin in this extraordinary experience, an experience of the contingency of the world. This deep sense and intuition that the world exists but does not have to exist, that things are but don't have to be, that they don't carry within themselves the reason for their own existence. Let's look at this laptop. How does it exist? Through the power of its own essence? No, it exists due to a whole slew of engineers, designers, scientists and manufacturers that put it together. Furthermore, it exists because of its molecule structure, atomic structure, subatomic structure, etc. and if you take those away, the laptop would evanescence. It's surrounded extrinsically and grounded intrinsically in all sorts of causes that bring it into being and allow it to be. Keep musing in that direction, and all those scientists, designers and technicians, and all those lower levels of physical reality, are themselves contingent — they don't contain within themselves the reason for their being. An endless appeal to contingent causes is not going to answer our question, "Why does this laptop exist?" Rather, as philosophers understand in an explicit way, and ordinary believers understand in an implicate way, we know there's some reality whose very nature is to be, that infinite source of reality which grounds and gives rise to the whole nexus of conditioned things. "In you we live and move and have our being," they say in the liturgy. That is the poetical expression of this philosophical expression, that is the true idea of God — the non-conditioned and non-contingent ground of contingency. In religious language, it is the "creator of the heavens and the earth". That is the distinction between God and anything within the world, between the properly supernatural and anything within nature. That is why the sciences, try as they might, can never even being to address this question.
The "New Atheists" who claim they are the rational ones, that the religious believe in their magical thinking, actually drop the question just when it gets interesting. The really interesting question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"; "Why does the world exist at all?"; "Why is there the realm of nature?"; "Why is there the nexus of contingent things?" — that's the interesting question. To reply, "I don't know"; "It just is"; "It popped out of nothing", is nothing short of bewildering when they are the one's accusing the religious of magical thinking. The question of God remains the most beguiling question on the table.
Excuse the grammar...