Rebuttal.
Actually false.
Big Bang proves nothing at all against God.
Correct. But it does not imply the existence of a God.
What I was taught in Science back in 8th Grade about the Big Bang, is that all of a sudden a HUGE explosion happened, which created everything. Time, Gravity, the Universe etc.
It was not an explosion, but rather the rapid expansion of space and time out of a primordial quantum soup, singularity, or collision of D-Branes. There are a myriad of hypotheses all trying to explain this. Not one of them can hit the experimental level yet though because they're not fully flushed out.
This HUGE explosion, is obviously a HUGE flash of light, in which is what is described as the creation of the Universe in the Bible.
This is likely a coincidence. Many creation stories from around the world start with everything coming from light (including the Enuma Elish, the precursor to the Genesis 1 narrative). The Big Bang does in fact say that photons (particles of light) were the primordial particles that were generated. These then turned into protons, neutrons, electrons, their antimatter counterparts and a slew of other fundamental building blocks of nature. Furthermore, Genesis gets such trivialities as the order of creation wrong, thus; it should NOT be trusted as a reliable source for generating knowledge of the world.
Things state originally the Universe was a Cloud of dust
Things? What things? This is not scientifically supported.
However if the Big Bang created everything, then this cloud literally could not have existed, unless of course it is Heaven.
How does this follow?
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/137-non-sequitur
Regardless, If nothing existed, then the only possible explanation for the Big Bang, and creation of our Universe, would be a God who has always existed, and was never created, and will never been destroyed.
Incorrect. You are paraphrasing the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has several fallacies. First of all, the premises imply that "something" created the universe. There is absolutely no way to tell what that "something" is. There would be no way to tell between a universe that was created by a highly advanced alien species or a God. Secondly, the argument intentionally conflates creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia. Creatio ex nihilo does not require a cause necessarily, because there would not be anything in existence to cause it. We also have scientifically verified events that ARE creatio ex nihilo and happen to have no particular cause. There are also a few other fallacies in relation to this argument but those were the main ones. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
And those who state Christians, or those who believe in a God, ignore what Atheists say.
Is partial true, however we don't block what you say.
I personally still consider it, however it doesn't sway my mind.
Why? Why is this needed? You're asking people to be close minded.
Also, It's stated in the Bible, God wants Free-Will.
Sorry pal, but Free Will does not exist in any Objective sense of the word (unless you're willing to redefine it into a coherent concept). Here is an example of an interesting thought experiment to illustrate my point. Imagine you have two identical people, one with free will and one without. Now please tell me how you would tell the difference between these two entities? What measurement would you make that would let you tell the difference? If there is no difference or if you can't figure out of it exists, then there is no free will.
See (for a better explanation):
http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-hell-is-free-will.html
Mainly why we are having this discussion currently. God wants people to have the CHOICE to believe in him, as if he spent all this time creating a Universe with people, plants, and animals etc. Just to force everyone into what he wants? How is that "Fun" in a sense.
The God you are describing appears to be the ultimate asshole. I'm sorry but your entire religion is based on a false dichotomy, the assumption that you either choose God or reject him. If people can question (with good reason) if the choice even exists, the choice has simply not been presented to them. God should have clearly presented a choice by demonstrating his existence, but he didn't. This would also NOT violate free will, because the choice still exists, you can still either choose God or "reject" him.
You want action, and to watch something interesting. However if you can control the game, and force everyone to do certain things, how is the interesting and fun to watch?
Once again see my above post. God demonstrating his existence would not violate free will.
Bases Physics states that for every action, there is an opposite reaction.
So if the reaction is the big bang, and creation of everything pretty much.
Then, I am pretty sure God is the only possible answer to have caused it.
Already refuted. See above.
Thats because God isn't necessarily a Human Being.
In Christian theology, Jesus is a human being AND God. Therefore God does have a human form. You're refuting your own bible now.
I know you stated without bringing the Bible into this, however it states in the Bible that all men are created equal in God's Vision.
It's also misogynistic, justifies slavery, and the killing of innocent civilians. Therefore, the bible does not state that all men are created equal.
However, just because you cannot see something, doesn't mean it isn't real.
This is true, but is not justification for a positive existential case.
Honestly, No one here, will know if there truly, is a God, and be able to prove it to everyone on Earth, until you die.
Why would this be? Why would God subject his people to this type of misinformation? Is he evil? Does he want people to go to hell? How does this make any sense at all? Why does God not just demonstrate his existence to everyone? As I discussed above, this does not violate free will.
However, if you are wrong, and God exists...then you will be standing at the Gates on Heaven thinking "Oops..."
Pascal's Wager is based on a false dichotomy. I will go into more detail if you'd like but for now I'm going to be moving on to your next point.
If you are not willing to believe in the existence of a God, then why are you here? Everything you do here is 100% pointless. Having family is 100% pointless. This conversation is 100% pointless.
Argument from consequences. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
See:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
Also, the Bible was written at hand of those who followed Jesus.
No. It was not written at hand of the people who followed Jesus. At best the Gospel accounts are anonymous, written decades after the fact, translated through multiple languages barriers, and used second or third hand sources, . Most modern scholars also believe that Mark was written first and the other Gospels were simply copying and improving what he had to say with their own theologies. So no, you're wrong; nothing in the New Testament was actually written by someone who was an eye witness to Jesus of Nazareth. I can site several extremely mainstream sources to back this up.
See:
http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2014/09/part-8-historical-jesus.html
However, If you believe that there was during that time period, a man named Jesus.
How would you guess someone randomly selected him as a person to write about in a book (if the Bible is false)
This happens quite frequently in ancient history. For example The Odyssey is quite similar as it probably took a known story and incorporated mythic elements. Anyway, I'm not going to go into detail of why we believe that the Gospels are almost entirely myth. If you want to see that, read Richard Carrier or Bart Ehrman.
Also, how does one write about these things in such detail?
How did someone write Harry Potter in such detail?
I don't think they could have had spare time to write an entire religious book(if they had to make it up), make everyone believe it, and then have it passed down through millions of generations, having us here centuries later, still believe it
This doesn't make sense. Are you now conceding that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired too? As it was a text that was written down, people made everyone believe it, and it was passed down through the generations. This is a text that directly contradicts your bible many key details.
TLDR - Horrific apologetics.
