Is atheism justifiable? (a viable possibility, worthwhile, true)

In conclusion, most of my arguments were dropped, and the most crucial was never dealt with by Con, which I will get to. In case you missed it, here's what Con missed: 1. My proof for the big bang and quantum fluctuations were both from NASA. Notice Con NEVER mentioned NASA at all, showing no contentions with their credibility or the correctness of their data; Con was too busy claiming speculation with the other sources to notice. 2. The image I provided, which clearly illustrates the big bang originating from quantum fluctuations was completely ignored by Con; it was also a NASA model. 3. Two of my sources were used to demonstrate the existence, not universe responsibility, of quantum fluctuations, and Con did not contend with the sources' support of quantum fluctuations' existence; Con instead only attacked quantum fluctuations' universe responsibility, which neither of the sources were used to support. 4. I mentioned that pre-universe, time wasn't stative. Con never addresses the stativeness of time pre or post universe; Con drops it completely. 5. I mentioned the red shifting galaxies that indicate the universe is expanding; Con dropped it completely. 6. I mentioned that nothing is an unstable state, and this will ultimately allow for energy from nothing; Con failed to acknowledge it. 7. I mentioned that energy resulting from pre-big bang quantum fluctuations in such a small space seems like a flicker, but proportionally to the small space is massively powerful. Con never addressed this small space = more powerful energy idea. 8. I mentioned that what Con claims are violations of laws, perfectly apply in the laws of quantum mechanics, and other than Con's own explanation of quantum mechanics, Con did not refute that these macro physics laws can be violated on the quantum level. 9. I mentioned that matter dictates space, and therefore time, and Con ignores this. 10. I mentioned Con's reference to the 1st law of thermodynamics, that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and its contradiction to the fact that Con claimed that god created matter/energy. Con doesn't actually drop it, he neglects its relevance in his response: "It would follow that the Creator of said laws, energy, etc. would be able to." Con never addressed how this doesn't violate the law "matter cannot be created." 11. I mentioned that creation is a temporal concept, and Con ignored this, only saying "God exists outside of space and time and is uncreated / eternal" without refuting that creation is contingent on time at all. 12. The most crucial shall be left for last. The entire debate, I was rejecting a creator of the universe, god or otherwise, because claiming that a temporal concept (creation) occurred without time is nonsensical. Since Con never responded to creation being contingent on time and he never responded to time being contingent on the universe, these resolution affirming arguments are completely dropped, hence one should vote Pro. I also wish to respond to more of Con's conclusion. Con shows his ignorance of temporal concepts: "For some reason he can conceive of particles existing and not existing forever" My response: Yeah, Con, "forever" is one of those temporal concepts...forever requires time, and when there was no time, forever is nonsensical to talk about; it doesn't exist without time. When time fluctuated, "forever" wasn't a thing. Con assumes: "In [Pro's] mind [Pro] believes God is not a possibility based on [Pro's] preconceived notions." My response: No, god doesn't seem like a possibility because no evidence indicates such. Con, had you provided some evidence for your universe creator, then I could reason a possibility of some creator in my mind; you didn't though. Con wrongly states: "[Pro's] "proof" relies on what he can or cannot conceive in his mind, nothing more..." My response: ...and mountains of objective, WMAP-acquired-evidence from NASA that Con never contended with. Con complains: "I asked simply, can you prove what the fluctuations are and their cause? He had nothing other than the same thing to say, fluctuations happen and there is speculation about whether or not it could cause the universe" My response: The physics links I provided clearly state that these fluctuations are a zero energy state, and they are made up of sub nuclear particles, like quarks and bosons, that fluctuate with their forces; their cause is the absence of energy. I never said there was speculation about their universe causing, Con did, and Con ignored the speculation-less evidence from NASA that shows quantum fluctuations-->big bang supports the speculation...voters please know that Con dropped my NASA evidence, the very evidence that has no speculation to it, because the evidence is a result of an anisotropy probe (WMAP) in outer space; the probe makes no speculations. Con puffs his chest: "I have just as much proof for another dimension as my opponent has for particles certainly not existing yet existing" My response: Great, where is it? Oh you didn't cite peer reviewed articles, NASA's space probe, or leading physicists in the area of other dimensions? Ok, then you don't have just as much proof, do you? In fact, one could claim that you are making crap up; I make that claim, because string theory, the developers of the idea of other dimensions, admits there is no experimental evidence for other dimensions...you know what there is experimental evidence for? Quantum fluctuations. Con continues illustrating his ignorance on temporal concepts: "[Pro] can imagine particles that exist yet don't eternally" My response: Con, "eternity" is yet another...you guessed it...temporal concept, so I certainly never made the claim that pre-big bang fluctuations are eternal, because there was no time for eternity before the universe. Eternity, without time, is nonsensical; i really wish Con could have addressed the temporal concept issue more...too bad. Con emboldens his ignorance: "He cannot imagine God, who exists outside of space and time, just as he claims the magic particles do" My response: Con, you never showed how god exists outside of time and space, you merely asserted it baldly, so shame on you, and the particles are not magic, check my name, and don't exist outside of time or space, because time and space are both CONTINGENT on the particles and later of course stative matter...did you even read my arguments? Con desperately tries to make an appeal to voters: "You may wonder, 'Why has pro never said what he means to say in an easy to follow way so we can clearly understand exactly what he's saying?'" My response: Nope, I never wondered that, and I doubt readers of this will either...but I pride myself on making things clearer for people; I'm actually paid to do so as a teacher. I mean to say: Pre-universe, there was no stative time, so creation of the universe, which requires time, is a nonsensical idea. P1 Before the universe there was no stative time P2 Without stative time, creation couldn't happen C1 Before the universe, creation couldn't have happened. Con lies: "I presented an ample amount of evidence to support my stance" My response: Where? All I see is Con's ignorance of temporal concepts, bald assertions like "god exists outside of time", and a massive LACK of evidence for such claims. What was Con's main source of evidence of a creator? His preconceived notions that there must be a god, because he happened be taught to believe in a particular god, and rejecting this lifelong investment would certainly crush him...or something to that effect. Con continues: "I refuted every last argument my opponent attempted to make" My response: Except for the 12 I listed earlier this round, including the crucial resolution affirmation. I extend all arguments that Con has not addressed, there are many, and I affirm the resolution that atheism is justifiable because a creator of the universe is not justifiable