(1)
The big bang talks about energy space and matter comming togeda.but before the big bang,there was nothing like energy, space, and matter.does it mean that these three were made available from nothing?

Common sence, you cannot produce something from nothing.unless through a supernatural means.

2) Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang. Nature itself was created at the Big Bang.That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call
supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
spaceless because it created space
timeless because it created time
immaterial because it created matter
powerful because it created it out of nothing.these are attributes of God.

3) It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact,the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term
miracle(sometin that cannot be explained using the laws of physics.). This term gives [atheistic] scientists the heebie-jeebies.

More to come.......

4.
There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. If one sees a bird's nest, he concludes that a bird made it. If one sees a computer, he must acknowledge the evidence of an intelligent computer designer. A
painting proves that there is a painter. Information does not derive from non-information. Intelligence does not derive from non-intelligence.The fact of
creation proves a creator.a simple bird nest cannot just appear,let alone a complex universe.

One significant individual who has come to believe in the existence of God is Antony Flew. Flew was this generation’s greatest atheist philosopher. However, Flew, through philosophical reasoning, came to believe in God.
Flew states that he wrestled with three key, major scientific questions. First, how did the laws of nature come to be? Second, how did life come from non-life? Third, how did the universe come into existence?

@OP

Supernatural is inherently irrational, it does not necessarily follow causality.

Frontpage please.Atheism debunked as usual.

Neddivine: Frontpage please.Atheism debunked as usual.

Lmao how does one debunk atheism? Smh..

Originakalokalo: 4.
There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. If one sees a bird's nest, he concludes that a bird made it. If one sees a computer, he must acknowledge the evidence of an intelligent computer designer. A
painting proves that there is a painter. Information does not derive from non-information. Intelligence does not derive from non-intelligence.The fact of
creation proves a creator.a simple bird nest cannot just appear,let alone a complex universe.

If one assumes a God, one must also assume a 'God' creator, and so on...

2) Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big slam. Nature itself was created at the Big slam.That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call
supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
spaceless because it created space
timeless because it created time
immaterial because it created matter
powerful because it created it out of nothing.these are attributes of God.

And you know this how ... Baseless asumption, flawed logic

(1)
The big slam talks about energy space and matter comming togeda.but before the big slam,there was nothing like energy, space, and matter.does it mean that these three were made available from nothing?

Common sence, you cannot produce something from nothing.unless through a supernatural means.

And you know this how
Morover the universe started from a point smaller than an atom, and on the atomic scale(quantum world) common sense as we know it does not apply.

@OP I am not an atheist but your argument is flawed especially your first and last point. You are not going to win any "intelligent " atheist over with these sort and line of argument..

BTW I also don't see the incessant need of religion to prove the existence of God to atheists. Not necessary. Is it perhaps because religion like atheists have a distorted view about God? It appears religion doesn't fully - or should I say refuse to- know and understand the nature and essence of God(the very thing/being they sought ti teach others about).

There is no need to prove something that is self evident. The very second you sought out to prove something exist means there is/was a possibility that it didn't/doesn't exist.