2) You got a limited view of God's PLAN OF SALVATION. You're only focusing on the punishment. It like a child being tought it the rights and wrongs of life, and when scolded because they chose wrong, decides their parent doesn't love them because they were punished. The fact of punishment doesn't mean that a parent or teacher or God doesn't love you. Punishment is PART of the solution that brings you to realization of whether something is wrong or right.

I understand your point, which is a good one, but I still disagree. I'll have to think about this a bit more and READ MY BIBLE, cause it has all the answers

Do you have to follow your parents rules?

Ask any person what is the most beloved thing in his life. Almost all will say his life. Even the poorest person is afraid of dying. Threat him and he will cry to help, try to defend himself. 'Life' is the most wonderful gift you can have and can give anyone. How can you say it is forced upon (you sound like it is disliked as it is forced).

So, thank the one gave you the most beautiful thing in the world, the life and don't be so ungrateful. Abide by his commands and refrain from things he dislikes. 

I will argue that the Big Band Theory is not an alternative to God - but rather a scientific theory which strongly supports the existence of God.

Rather the alternative would have been the steady state model which posits that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age. The Big Bang theory, rather, is a scientific theory that theorizes universe DID in fact have an absolute  beginning, and that the beginning was timless, massless, and spaceless. About 13.7 billion years ago, all physical things came into existence from nothing.

An axiomatic statement would be that which begins has a cause.

If you're familiar with philosophy, you're probably familiar with the Cosmological argument as well:
1. That which begins has a cause.
2. The Universe began
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause.

Since time, space, and matter are all a part of the universe - we can logically conclude that the cause of the universe was uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial entity of unfathomable power (enough to bring something on the scale of the universe into existence).

What we also know from physics relating to the big bang model are two more critical items:

1. When the laws of nature are examined in mathematical terms, certain constants emerge, such as the gravitational constants.  are balanced in such a way that physical and liquid matter are able to exist. Now add in that the quanities of dark matter, dark energy, matter, and energy need to be in certain ratios for gravity to function in the way that we observe, and you get an incredibly minute chance of a physical universe existing where solid and liquid matter can exist. To give example of just one of these constants and to demonstrate just how minute the chance of a universe with solid matter would be, take the atomic weak force: if the atomic weak force would alter just 1 in 10 to the 100th power, then solid matter would not exist in this universe.

2. These contants remain constant, why don't these constants alter shattering the very fabric of existence?  Yet it, and other constants remain in such a state that the universe permits solid and liquid matter, which is required for life.

There are three possibilities to explain why the Universe is in the state that it is: Chance, physical necessity, and due to an intelligent design.
1. Chance, which we know from science is astronomically unlikely; it cannot be rationally argued that the universe began as chance. If the universe occurred by chance, the chance of universe which has no solid or liquid matter is astronomically more likely.
*One supporting argument for chance is the multiverse hypothesis, that is, that this universe is one part of an ensemble of undetectable universes, and therefore due to this, the chance of a solid and liquid matter producing universe becomes more likely - yet this theory suffers from devastating objections - including the objection that the chances of molecules randomly coming together and forming our solar system is MUCH more likely than a universe on the scale of ours emerging would be - therefore, by mere chance alone, it is extraoridinarily more likely that we would be seeing a MUCH smaller universe than what we have. This fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.
2. Physical Necessity is not possible either since the quanitities of matter, energy, and the constants of nature are independent of one and other. One does not require one of the others.
3. This leaves the most logical argument: that the intial state of existence came from an intelligent design.

The big bang theory in fact does quite a lot to support both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments for the existence of God.

As for the topic "you don't owe God anything." - I don't agree with the premise that you should have to owe God anything. What would God need? I don't think this is a part of any of the major modern religions. You might owe your Church/temple/mosque dues, but this is simply for the purpose of those respective institutions, not for God. Some of these institutions are corrupt (an example is the Medici run Catholic church of the renaisance period, who convinced people that they could purchase indulgences from them to get into heaven. The Medicis also happened to be the big insurance and banking company of their era.). Some of these institutions use extra funding to support the needy around the world, where governments have failed to provide adequate healthcare along with the basic needs for continued living.

If you want your allowance and dessert after dinner. 

There are two stark differences between a parent's punishment and God's punishment.

1.) A parent's punishment is temporary and is meant to discourage future bad behavior. After an effective punishment session, a child leaves a better person and can make the world a better place perhaps by helping others. God's punishment is eternal and does not allow the person to ever learn a lesson. Apparently God is incapable of forgiveness after you die. God's punishment brings you to no salvation. Even if you reach a realization after your punishment, then it doesn't matter - you'll be punished forever. On the other hand, if you come to a realization after your parent's punishment, then s/he will likely discontinue the punishment. Why doesn't God do the same for changed people?

2.) God punishes people for things that He designed them to do - sin. We've already agreed that sin is intrinsically associated with humans; since they cannot live without God and without sin. Since Humans didn't design their inherent nature, the creator must be God. This means that God is designing humans for doing what He made them do. No competent parent would punish a child for doing something that they influenced the child to do. Why can't God do the same.

3.) There's a major limitation in God's power. It seems that once you die, if you haven't accepted God, then God is incapable of forgiving you. He completely lacks the ability to forgive you. He can't even forgive you if you've changed your ways after Hell.

Also, I find it funny that you compare God's PLAN OF SALVATION to the parenting strategies of humans. What's even funnier is the fact that God's plan seems inferior.

You do not need faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory, at least not much of it. The universe is shown now to be expanding. Logic suggest that if you go back in time, the universe would shrink. And if you go back far enough, then you will reach a singular point. 

On the other hand, where is the evidenece for the Christian God. Some people believe there must have been a creator, that's fine. But where is the evidence for only one God? Where is the evidence that He's all powerful? Where is the evidence that He knows everthing? Where is the evidence that He even loves at all, let alone is all-loving. Also, there are dozens upon dozens of interpretations of what the creator(s) supposedly is. Needless to say, the faith required to believe in God is exponentionally greater than the faith required to believe in things live black holes.

When scientists from different times and different parts of the world all agree that there all black holes, and they agree on what black holes actually are, then it's safe to believe they are true. However, no one can point to evidence that there is a creator that's singular, omnibeloved, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, conscious, and eternal, then you could compare the Christian God to Black Holes. AND once everyone can agree on the structure and function of God, then you could compare the Christian God to Black Holes.

Like I said, I can understand the belief in a creator. But to add all those traits is unjustified.

How can you disagree if you can't answer why? Do you not understand your own beliefs?

1.) The only reason we love life is because God designed us to love life. Again, we had no choice but to love life; God made us. Why should we thank a person for granting a need that HE made us have? That's like a drug-dealer kidnapping a kid and then injecting them with herion. Now, the kid is addicted to heroin. The drug-dealer is happy to supply the kid with heroin at a price. Should the kid thank the kidnapper for satisfying his need, for supplying him with heroin? No, becaues the kid's need was created by the drug-dealer in the first place. The drug-dealer forced the kid to be dependent of him. The same goes for God; just replace the drug-dealer with God. Life is only beautiful because God made us think it's beautiful

2.) Also, for a lot of people, life isn't the best thing available. I'm sure many people would exchange their life for more wonderful things like world peace, the end of hunger, etc. It's even happened in history before; people have given their lives for a bigger cause.