The conception of the Big Bang here is wrong, and the conception of the second law of thermodynamics, too.
Crudely put, the Big Bang Theory starts with the observation that the universe is expanding, and that therefore everything was closer together in the past. In actuality, a lot of high level differential geometry is involved; it is the space-time metric which is changing, so that the lengths of geodesics increase between two given points in space. What the Big Bang theory tells us is that at some point in time, the metric was conformally flat, which translates into something akin to clocks not keeping time in any frame of reference. Please keep in mind that my understanding of this is vague and crude as well, having taken only one grad-level differential geometry course and listened to Penrose speak once. But as you can reasonably infer, a sophisticated reading of the Big Bang theory need not lead to any creation ex nihilo. In fact, at the lecture I heard Penrose give, he seemed to contend that the conformal era at the heat death of our universe could lead to a conformal era similar to that at the Big Bang, which would imply our universe behaves cyclically.

The second law of thermodynamics is an axiom about thermodynamics, and therefore a statistical statement about the way particles behave. As a result, our intuitions about how thermodynamics should behave will probably fail when butting them up against the Big Bang. Why entropy was low in the past remains an open problem in science, but this fact does not successfully bring us to the conclusion that the universe had a "beginning" in the sense given in your copy-paste.

Einstein's theory of GR does not require that the universe have a beginning and an end, that's ridiculously false. Just read up on it.

The argument that the Big Bang matches with the Genesis account is ridiculous too. Just read Genesis, and ask yourself: how much of this fits with what we know about the history of the universe? Well, they get "In the beginning God created Heaven", if they are willing to grant that Heaven is space, and not, you know, heaven. Then everything goes wrong.

The anthropic argument is quite silly: if things were different, they would be different.

The intelligent design argument is really an argument from ignorance of evolution.

The moral argument is really an argument from ignorance of moral philosophy.

And unless your friend is William Lane Craig, they're a plagiarist.