The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

this argument does not stand on scientific ground , but philosophical, based on inductive reasoning.

Of course it doesn't. That's why it's unacceptable as proof of anything except an overactive imagination.

how comes it then, that a big portion of the scientific community agrees on that matter ?

You provided me with a link to a site that does not provide a scientific paper. I've read numerous books and papers on the subject by the phyiscists who actually study this sort of thing.

I will state that they do state with however much frequency that the universe began at the big bang. I do not disagree with this assertion and I've mentioned this earlier in this discussion. However, they do not assert that the universe was created at the big bang in the sense that there was no matter and energy prior to the big bang and there was huge energy after. Instead, they assert that the universe as we understand it now had begun at the big bang and it will end at another point in the past.

how do you explain then outside body experiences ?

Like this: There is a part of the brain you can stimulate in order to replicate those experiences.

So according to the new york times...
The journal of neurology states that...
The New England Journal of Medicine postulates that...
WebMD on Medscape today writes that...
...those out of body experiences are thanks to a part of the brain you can stimulate. The experiement I've seen on television (discovery health, if I remember correctly) was actually able to do this without opening up your skull but instead using a specialized helmet and the doctor was able to throw a switch and the subject, who was not informed as to the true purpose of her visit there of what was actually happening, had an out of body experience.

you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Scientific laws are based on empirical and testable evidence, not solely on reasoning.
Three points, however:
One, you're right, nothing is ever 100% certain. Nothing ever done by science, no matter what, is going to be wholly without error or fully certain to be accurate. Things like gravity are extremely certain, but not completely certain.
Two, faith is something completely different. I can be very certain that the sun will come up tomorrow just as I'm certain that four and a half billion years of evidence of being bathed in sunlight that this planet has had a sun come up for eons longer than either of our lifetimes. That does not require faith in the manner in which you think of faith. I can also be sure of this fact because of an understanding of the mechanics of gravity, geology, and an understanding of the solar system can allow me to understand how the Earth keeps its orbit and proper rotation for its twenty-four hour day. This can allow me to surmise the circumstances that allow the Earth to keep its 24-hour day rotation and the circumstances that can alter that. Of course, new information can change things, but ultimately I can say that it extremely likely that the Earth's rotation and orbit around the sun will allow the sun to rise tomorrow morning. In fact, I can make exceptionally accurate predictions as to when this can occur well into the future. You can check this on weather websites, the weather channel, and other sources to see when the sun will rise in your area in the morning.
Three, Science is not based on philosophy or any predetermined assumptions that cannot be scientifiically proven. If that were the case, then it would not be called science because it would most certainly be something else. You can certainly say that science had some pretty crazy ideas when it was getting a real go in its early lead to the modern age, but most if not all of that is due to having inaccurate information.

You have only the two alternative options. This is indeed not a false dilemma, but a true one.

That is exactly what a false dilemma is - presenting two options that you state are the only options when it is readily apparent that they are not necessarily the only options.

Of course not. God is not nothing. God is God.

God violates the very cosmological arguement because he's an exception from the inane rule that you created that the universe cannot be eternal, as though that answer were actually known. According to the cosmological arguement and indeed any creation story, the universe was nothing until God intervened and created the universe from nothing.
The very arguement itself is a logical fallacy because it is argued that nothing existed prior to the big bang except god and god created the universe. There is no evidence of this at all and current phyiscal laws dispute many aspects of this -ranging from the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) to the fact that things become more complex over time and begin in a more simple manner (god himself is extremely complex as a pre-existing eternal omnipotent and omnicient hyper-intelligence).
Ergo, scientifically speaking, the god answer is far less likely a possibility than other theories on how the singularity universe came to be.