Whenever I see an argument, I can't help but respond, so here's my rebuttal. Firstly, it's quite unfair to consider theists non-critical thinkers. Why do you think they felt the need to build those arguments and why do you think they are able to say that it takes more faith to be an atheist? There are Christians who are skeptical as much as there are non-Christians who are skeptical.
1. The Big Bang is what most likely took place, causing the universe. What theists are begging is what caused the Big Bang, and if not God, what caused that? So that takes me to the response. There is no such thing as something coming from nothing. In quantum physics, particles pop in and out, true, but they're not doing that in nothing. The scientific "empty space" is actually not empty space. It's energy ebbing and flowing. The quantum particle are not appearing uncaused and they're not coming from nothing. Something coming from an actual nothing is not possible. So, the thing you're trying to prove should not be that something can be uncaused if it begins to exist, it should be whether what caused the big bang began to exist.
2. Fine-tuning is a whole lot more complicated to explain than that. If you want to refute the argument, you're gonna need more of an essay on how all the aspects of laws need not be fine-tuned.
3. Did you just say that we see life emerge from non-life? We SEE it?! That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims, as you yourself said, need extraordinary evidence. So you'll need to cite some of the labs that supposedly did this and how they did it.
4. I have nothing to say about this point. It's one I've never made in favor of God, for sure.
5. I already reject the moral argument. Although, I reject it because I don't think morality has to exist. Whatever morality people make up is what morality is, if God doesn't exist, though it won't at all be objective.
6. Say what you will, but neither side is very convincing until you hear the whole argument. Well, actually your side is more convincing because you're making more of a rhetorical appeal. Than the other, yours being a refutation and all.
"Until then, critical thinking wins?!" No one disagrees that critical thinking wins! We use critical thinking to get that extraordinary proof! Critical thinking and extraordinary evidence go hand in hand, so don't say, "until then!" Critical thinking is not on your side, it's on NO ONE'S SIDE! Critical thinking doesn't take sides.
