You may be one of the moderate or scientific religious people. If you’re not sure, let me approximately describe what those people are: they believe life originated by some chemical process around 3.5 billion years ago, consistent with abiogenesis. But they equally believe a pre-existent intelligence guided the chemical process, and this intelligence gave the concept of life—the soul or a spark of life—itself to these chemicals instead of life emerging from the chemicals.
After this point, the moderate religious person believes God has allowed evolution to run amok and create parasites and imperfect physiology. However, God has not necessarily been absent. Instead, He has guided evolution to produce creatures capable of love and passion and moral senses. From a moral standpoint, they may even believe sex is not the taboo religion often describes it as; if sex was such a taboo, then God would not have allowed evolution to hardwire sex so deep in our psychology.
This type of person agrees that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago. They may even agree with Lawrence Krauss; that the universe arose from a pre-existing and potentially eternal, spaceless environment: a quantum field, or the laws of physics.
In each of these, and in many other examples from science (although, these are the ones theological discussions tend towards), I cannot disprove God is an element of them. I cannot tell you there are evidential reasons to believe God was absent from these events. What I can tell you is there is no evidential reason to believe God is present in these events. God is superfluous footnote, or a guess, or a step to make understanding something a little easier.
You may wonder why I challenge the logic of believing in God when there is no evidence against Him. Firstly, it is not true that there is no evidence against God; it doesn’t take much Googling to find the logical paradoxes of a god, and the inconsistency between God’s books and reality. However, the reason I am critical of believing in God, even without evidence against Him is that to believe a thing without evidence of its truth is to imagine something and accept it to be true simply because it could be imagined. Or, worse yet, to believe a thing simply because another person could imagine it and speak it. Evidence is filter between imaginable ideas and truth.