Atheism(pro) vs Theism(con)

First of all, I thank Con for such an interesting opening statement. I find it exciting to debate Con and hope for an enlightening debate for both sides.Let's beginCon brought up three major arguments:1. The Morality Argument2. The Fine-tuning Argument3. And lastly, The Kalam ArgumentSo, I'll address Con's arguments in the order stated above.1. The Morality ArgumentCon worried that if there were no God, then there wouldn't be any absolute standard of rightness. And since there were no standard of rightness, what would prevent people from killing one another?In response to Con's concern, I'll offer two fundamental elements that explain why morality the way it is.1. Natural Selection2. EmpathyLet's do a thought experiment in order to see how these elements shape our moralitySuppose A is a society where murdering other people is considered righteous and encouraged. On the contrary, suppose B is a society where such behavior is prohibited. Now imagine its election season and everyone is going frenzy for their candidates. Everybody thinks their candidate is 'the one'. The two opposing sides criticize the other's 'stupidity' for thinking that 'XYZ' will benefit the country. The antagonism escalates as the election day coming. Now, keep in mind that murdering others is righteous in society A, so what would prevent the two sides from killing each other? NOTHING! Indeed, the 2 opposing sides would annihilate each other until they all agree to stop the killing or they'd keep doing it until they become extinct. On the other hand, society B would flourish and continue to survive.The experiment demonstrated a fact: With certain mutual obligations, the society thrives and survives. Without certain mutual obligations, the society declines and becomes extinct.To have a murder-permitting society is as impossible as making a squared circle because both of them are logical impossibilities.So, to answer the question: "On atheism, why is killing wrong?"A: Because if it was right, then we wouldn't even be here to ask the question! What about empathy? Research has been done and confirmed the existence of "mirror neurons". These neurons enable humans to feel other people's pain. You feel pain when you see another person hurt. Or you feel sad for a woman who just lost their son. You feel empathy for others NOT because some laws written inside your brain tells you to do so, but because your brain imagine how terrible you would feel if you were that woman. All of these are effects of "mirror neurons". Sociopaths and serial killers have these neurons impaired.How does this explain morality?When I apologize for saying harsh word to my mom, I do so not because according to some moral laws it was the right thing to do, but because my brain "mirror" how miserable my mom would feel if I were her. In such cases, I'd say sorry to my mom because it makes me feel better since my brain mirrors the bliss that my mom has after my apology. There is no such law that said "Thy shalt feel guilt after saying harsh words to thy family." FAQ1. "If there's no standard of rightness, I shouldn't have to pay my debt back"Thats a self-contradicting statement because in a world where you can get away with not paying debt, there wouldn't be any money lending because nobody would give away something they know they might never be able to get back.Objective morality is a mutual obligatory rules that helps the society thrive. "But why is helping the society thrive a moral thing to do", a theist may ask. The answer is: a community that considers "helping the society to decline" a good thing to do would not exist since they would sooner or later be wiped out! People used to feel that slavery was completely moral and just. But nowadays, our morality has evolved (thanks to natural selection) to the point that such action is considered unethical and thats should be the evidence for "moral evolution."2. The Fine-tuning Argument Con opens his paragraph by a mind-boggling statement: "The world is so complex that there must be a creator." How could one think that the world's complexity must be designed while a much much more complex being such as a God is just there?In order to calculate those numbers, Con made three assumptions and zero of them have any supporting evidence.1. The universe parameters are independent2. Carbon-based life is the only life form possible3. The universe existence is for life1. Is the weak/strong force, energy density governed by any unknown laws? We don't know yet. Suppose a ball is thrown up and your job is to calculate the probability the that ball falls straight down. To an alien who has no idea about the force of gravity, the probability that the ball falls straight down would be infinitesimally small since there're infinite many different angles that the ball can move. 2. Is carbon-based life the only life form possible? Con gave several examples: too much radiation, unstable gravity, extreme Earth conditions, sun would not exist.. etc. Yes! I agree that those conditions would be too extreme for HUMAN to exist because it took billions of years for us to become adapted to the current condition. This is like taking an ant, drown it in the water and conclude that "land was fine-tuned for the ant." Of course we all know that is ridiculously wrong because the ant took billions of years to evolve to become adjusted to the evironment on land and now you're taking it to a completely foreign environment like water and expect the ant to survive? Similarly, one cannot take a human who has been adapted to the environment of this universe, to another universe where the conditions are radically different and say that we couldn't exist therefore the universe was fine-tune for us. In fact, we are fine-tuned for the universe.3. Would it be abit arrogant to think that the purpose of the universe is us? Alex's professor just gave a lecture about DNA. A change in DNA could lead to a shift in a person's characteristics. Based on that reason, Alex calculated the probability that the DNA's pairs were just right for him to exist is infinitely small so he concluded that there gotta be somebody who 'fine-tuned' these pairs just so he could exist! If you think Alex is being ridiculous, then I don't see how you could take this argument seriously. 3. And lastly, The Kalam ArgumentP1. Everything begins to exist has a causeThe first premise is concluded by observations on Earth and experience. So by definition we can say that its domain is within our universe because outside of this universe, the validity of this statement is uncertain. Also, we know that everything 'begin to exist' that we observe around is the result of the rearrangement of already existing atoms. For example, the atoms that make up a fetus are not created at the moment the fetus begins to exist but they already existed prior to the fetus's existence. Knowing these facts, the first premise should be rewritten more precisely as follow:P1: Everything begins to exist may have a cause (since a statement is taken out of its scope, it becomes uncertain)or with almost absolute certainty as followP1: Everything within the universe that begins to exist as a result of the rearrangement of already existing atoms has a cause of its existence.Let's put the premises togetherP1: Everything begins to exist may have a cause P2: The universe began to existC : Therefore the universe may have a cause (Big Surprise!)orP1: Everything within the universe that begins to exist as a result of the rearrangement of already existing atoms has a cause of its existence.P2: But the universe is not within the universe, and it began to exist as a result of the creation of atoms, space, and timeC : Therefore it is logically fallacious to conclude that the universe must have a cause.Closing:So I think that I've given several analogy trying to explain the problems with Con's arguments. I'm looking forward to hearing Con's reponses to my arguments.