Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Defense of Cosmological Argument Something cannot come from nothing is just simplifying the first law.Virtual particles Even though some particles do indeed pop out of quantum vacuums and spacetime, they are not vacuums in the traditional sense of the word. They are ripe with energy, take up space, and are governed by laws[1]. It is not nothing at all, and it’s interesting to note that the vacuums very existence comes from the intelligent planning of scientists. Virtual particles are also produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not “nothing”; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called “virtual particles.”If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an “empty” room, I’m really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions—width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space. So no the entire case is has not been destroyed. Even if VP were produced from nothing to say the entire case is dismantled is to commit the fallacy of division (occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts). Paul Tobin's objectionsSingle causeThe Kalam nor this argument is about proving a creator. Saying "It doesn't prove that it wasn't multiple creators" doesn't refute the argument at all. Its like refuting Pro's arguments by saying "It doesn't prove any philosophy of atheism (humanism or nihilism)" Besides I did have this in my second part of the argument"• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites." The objection is a red herring It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God. This is why the argument is in 2 parts. I included both Entropy I am not mistaken on entropy. I described what's called the heat death. All of the usable energy would be used up resulting in a heat death[2]A heat death would still happen if the universe was eternal and open.[3][4]Sub argument "A" (infinite time) has not been touched upon.Defense of TAGPro presented the TANG (transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God). Pro did attack TAG yet he did not answer the question proposed by TAG (how can an atheist account for the laws of logic). ...assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God, since it is a part of his perfect nature.If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God Incorrect. If logic is a part of God's nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God's existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists.God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence.The objection erringly separates God's nature from logic, as if logic can be a separate thing from God's nature. This is not the TAG argument, and it is not logically necessary as shown above. if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change.TANG fails to understand the TAG argument properly. By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid."The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it's the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it" you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis [5]Sources[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.windows2universe.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996, p. 18.