of course,if your god is darwin or some other material entity there is a beginning.the same i guess for tooth fairies and spahgatti beasts.

Well Darwin had a beginning and end (I can give you evidence if you like, though don't ask me to dig him up and do a DNA test), he was full of self-doubt, he certainly made a lot of mistakes, he was unacquainted with the modern genetics that would have helped him considerably and he was quite poorly a lot of the time. That doesn't make him much of a god in my book. Now, if you could provide evidence for your chap's mastery of infinity, then let's be having it.

matter etc is running down if i am correct and consequently cannot be eternal or it would have long since ceased.

Well we don't know whether you're correct or not because we don't know what you're on about. Do feel free to expand on what you mean by matter "running down", and, perhaps, while you're at it, tell us what that little "etc." of yours comprises.

your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?]

There is no "before that". Time started with the Big Bang. It's an integral dimension of the universe (spacetime, innit) and any "concept" of time outside that context is nonsensical.

the maths experts here can tell me if there is consensus on the following-to wit that the probability of nothing exploding to begin everything and first life building blocks has so many zeros after it as to amount to an impossibility.

Well now, I freely admit that I happen to be far more confident about the truth of evolution [snicker] than I am about the Big Bang, but there happens to be a lot of evidence that there was, indeed, a Big Bang, counter-intuitive though it seems (and it is to me, frankly, as a mere biologist). But, you see, there is evidence. Enough to convince most scientists (that's not weasel words - it's true) that it is a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are alternative suggestions within the realms of science, but we have to consider them on their merits, that is, taking what evidence we do have into account. Now you appear to be dismissing the Big Bang as some kind of fantastical impossibility. Then you give us your alternative as if it's the most obvious idea in the world, thus: the theist points to an eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful God and IMO the One described in the bible fits the bill. Dearie me! What logic!

your objection steve [other than blind prejudice] is that such a creator would need to be more complex than that which he made.
i think that this mindset posits him with the same material limitations as his creation.He is not material but spiritual and supernatural so not complex in material terms.

No blind prejudice here. I've struggled long and hard to balance evidence, and, unfortunately, found your chap to be somewhat wanting. You, on the other hand, refuse to consider any evidence that has not already been pre-twisted by your creationist chums. As for your second point, well it's easy enough to try to circumvent all argument by putting your fellow beyond science. It's not quite so easy for you to produce any evidence for your assertion. I await.