I'm a Christian, proud to be and I always appreciate seeing questions like this. I always look forward in engaging with polite discussions with Atheists. Debate implies that I won't accept accept open ideas. I prefer the term discussion or polite disagreement.

Actually, believing in God is what makes the most sense. Since, it has been established in the second law of thermodynamics that something cannot be created out of nothing. For the premise of the law of thermodynamics to be true, one must accept that something has been created.

You may bring up the Big Bang or the concept of the initial singularity of all matter and energy, but a question will still arise, what caused the Big Bang, where did this singularity came from.

Whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, if you are honest with yourself, at the current state of Science, we still don't know anything. We will know it when we know it. But to reject the concept of a God when Science has not even proved or disproved His existence is a little bit irrational. At least Christians have their Faith as a basis, what do those Atheists have to back their rejection? An incomplete materialistic evidence that answers nothing?

Granted, it makes sense for Atheists to reject God if they make presumptions or define God on finite Humanistic knowledge. I can define God as a flying spaghetti monster so I can reject it and that's it. But it will be dishonest of me to do so since I am only misrepresenting bible's arguments to justify my rejection of my own concept of a Creator. Then, why would I suppose that this creator can only exist in the finite universe given that He is supposed to be infinite and not bound by time? As the String Theory suggests, a person living in a 2d universe cannot decipher the existence of a person living in a 3d universe, we humans, who are living in a 3d universe cannot decipher people from 4d universe assuming that there is a a 4d universe.

I do not believe in any religion. They are all dogma, that indoctrinates the masses to follow like sheep.
There is no evidence for any of their gods/deities existence. They say you need to have "faith" in order to know that god is there. I am here to say that there is a difference between faith and delusion. I can have faith in my friends being there for me. I cannot have faith that they have pet goblins as that would be ludicrous and quite frankly - delusional.

My issue with this argument always been in one hand you say that every thing need to be created but then you assume a god who was not created.  I never understood how picking a very complex being that knows everything and capable of creating something from nothing (God) as the starting point makes more sense then picking the laws of physics and some simple matter as the starting point.  One seem so much more simple to me.

This assume when you say god you mean a sentient god that takes a direct role in the universe.  If you choosing a more broad definition fine but it just seem the existence of a god with that broad of a definition is fairly irreverent.   

My argument is the state of the universe post big bang provides all the ingredients for science to explain everything that took place afterward.  If you say a God was needed for big bang I don't agree but it hard for me to see why it would be relevant to me since it was no need for a god for the past ~13.7 billion years.  

Pre big bang is probably not within the current human brain ability to grasp and who knows if it will ever be.  It want to use God as a place holder for what we don't understand so be it but it seem a big leap to me to then create religion which assume what that mysterious gods wants from us or interacts with us at all.

Well I also like debating this sort of thing, so at least we'll start on common grounds.  

First off, I think you confused the second and first laws of thermodynamics.  Not a big deal, but you may want to be more careful if you're invoking that.  You're also slightly messing up the wording.  The law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  It has nothing to do with creating from nothing.  It just can't be created period within a closed system.  So, actually, if someone accepts that something has been created (from within a system) that would actually defy and invalidate the first law of thermodynamics.  

Secondly, you've said atheists reject god, and this is not true.  SOME atheists reject god, but that's not a requirement.  Most, like me, would simply say, I don't believe it until I have evidence.  Which is, if you've acknowledged its existence has not been proven or disproven, the only rational position one can take.  You also say you have faith to back you up, but that's kind of weird to me.  How do you define faith, and why is it good support for your beliefs?

Of course, if you believe in the Christian god, and you believe the Bible is both accurate and literal, I would say I do actually reject that god.  

This is simply wrong as only one side is claiming proof while the other side is hypothesizing and trying to find proof. The search for proof for or against god may be complicated but the conclusions drawn from having no proof are not. The denial of believing in something without proof does not equal denying the possibility. Denying possibilities is something that you and theists do. Science does not take their own answers they got from empiric evidence and hypothesis as ultimate truth. It merely uses it as a tool and is constantly both trying to disprove or proof their own convictions. How many theists try to disprove god on a daily basis?

The difference here is that if one scientist found undeniable proof that our current foundations of physical understanding are wrong, most of them would be absolutely thrilled about it because even disproving all we know right now will bring us even closer to the actual truth. How do you think theists and their followers will react if presented with undeniable proof against god? They will just say that it's impossible to disprove god and move on with their lives, which is the worst kind of ignorance. Because they have been taught from childhood that believing in something is just as valuable as having proof for something.

It's not just about having or not having proof, or believing and not believing. It's also about what you do with your own conclusions. Believing in something without proof is alright, scientists do it all the time, with the difference being that their beliefs are a hypothesis that has no claim to absolute truth until proven.

I did not assume. It was already given as stated in the bible Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Now you may be thinking, "wait a moment, that's a lousy excuse." You can take it however you like it but assuming Einstein's theory that time is relative to matter, and Bigbang is the beginning of all matter, therefore, time did not exist before Bigbang. Therefore, without Faith into the equation, the bible quote itself makes more sense.

This may sound cheesy to you but it makes sense if you think about it. The pursuit of knowledge without God is a never ending futile exercise as stated in Ecclesiastes 1:17-18, "then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom . . . but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief"

My apologies if my attempt to explain my argument in a simpler form has caused a confusion. I can assure you that this is just semantics.

Matter has mass, and mass is a form of energy. All energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed in one form or another. Thus, my point still stands, what triggers this infinite energy known to Science as the initial singularity to prompt a Big Bang explosion that caused the birth of time matter and space?

Removing faith into the equation, the least Atheists and Christians can agree on is that, we don't know anything. You may put a "yet" on the statement but at the current state of what we have, we still don't know anything. Until we know it, Atheism is just like a Religion. It is just another belief, whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, you choose your poison. But for Atheists to claim that it is scientific to deny God is a bit irrational given that Science has not yet answered anything. At least Christians have their lousy excuse called "Faith" while Atheist hides behind Science which does not explain anything "yet". Atheists can deny God, go. But call it an opinion and don't present it as fact.

As stated by David Berlinski, an Atheist himself, states:

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

Actually, I'm following the definition. The rejection of the concept of a creator is what Atheism is about. If you are impartial, whether you believe or deny anything, at best you are an agnostic.

I'm sort of confused... I explained, I think quite clearly, that I do not necessarily reject or deny god and that most atheist don't do this either... And then you have a whole thing about why it's wrong to deny god?  And you should clearly know that atheists do not necessarily deny god, since you just quoted an atheist who doesn't deny god.

You're presenting a straw man argument.  To be clear again.  I don't deny god in general (although I may deny specific gods if they are defined.  I don't see any good evidence, so I don't believe.  If someone provided good evidence, I would believe.  

Edit:  If you are defining atheism as someone who rejects god, and you also call Berlinski an atheist, when he clearly does not, then you are contradicting yourself.

I wouldn't worry too much. Dota2Gamer has created their own interpretation of an atheist. Religious people do this all the time.  They can't even agree on what their holy texts say. The only conclusion that is in agreement is that there is a deity. Otherwise, it is an argument about their interpretation of their holy texts and what they believe to be the "true" god. 
It is quite fascinating. 

Again, I'm following the definition. Whatever you want to call yourself, whether it's, "it's complicated", "questioning" "curious", it's fine. But I'm just following the definition.

David Berlinski, a renowned Scientist, does not even defend the existence of God. Rather, he criticized Atheism claiming that in order to stay scientific, one must not pretend that Science disproves God. He wrote a book, Devil Delusion in response to Richard Dawkin's God Delusion.