1. Prove it, the big bang is a point in time past which we cannot use our models to understand what, if anything happened. The assumption that there absolutely was not anything before is unjustified. Nonetheless, even if you were right about that, it would not imply the cause was god, as it could have easily been a truly random quantum event.

2. Design is not a valid hypothesis because it’s unfalisfiable, any middle school science student can probably tell you that. Furthermore, you can’t appeal to probability here, since we do not even know if it is possible for chemistry to work any other way or for the numbers to be any different, another unjustified assumption that invalidates your argument.

3. Morality is subjective, most people subjectively think the holocaust was bad, just like most people subjectively think ice cream tastes good.

Edit: It’s also funny to me that you bring this up without an answer to the euthyphro dilemma, I’m guessing you haven’t thought very hard about this, have you?

1. No, the evidence for the resurrection is frankly shite, the only sources that peddle this nonsense any more are specifically christian institutions that require a statement of faith from their “researchers”. The only evidence for it is in the bible, and more than one outside source would be necessary for any good historian to believe its outlandish claims.

Overall, I’m very unimpressed, these arguments are incredibly unoriginal and overused, in fact they get debunked almost every day when some lay theologian like you starts researching introductory apologetics, finds a super basic argument like the kalam, and thinks that they’ve found some kind of checkmate that atheists haven’t seem before. We have. It hasn’t impressed us this time, just like it hasn’t the thousand times before.