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

Quickly, one thing that Con mentioned from round 2 that I never addressed:"Did you know that the odds of everything happening just right like we enjoy presently (life permitting even) are 1 in 10 to the 60th?"My response:Con's source never explained how these calculations were arrived at or if they can be verified. These numbers seem made up and irrelevant, and I extend that across all of Con's numbers of probability for "how things are."Back to 4th round...Con inquires:"You are presenting one of many views available, what are you doing to convince anybody that this particular view is not only correct but, it follows that there is no God?"My response:The particular view I'm affirming is that, without STATIVE time, in pre-big bang quantum fluctuations, creation couldn't have happened, because creation is a temporal concept contingent on STATIVE time and the passage thereof.It follows that god, the creator of the universe, cannot be; there was no STATIVE time to create the universe, so disbelief in our universe's creation is justifiable.The word "stative" simply means in a remaining state.For example, "existence" is a stative concept, because it is a state that remains, while "running" is a dynamic, not a stative concept, because it is not a state and it doesn't remain; "fluctuating" is another dynamic concept.So, when time was fluctuating in out of existence in quantum fluctuations, it never remained statively.Once there was stative matter from unstable quantum fluctuations at the big bang, there was then stative time.Temporal concepts require stative time.Con, how can you justify ascribing a temporal concept like creation to an event that allowed for stative time?Con asserts:"Agnosticism and atheism are both belief systems. They are both isms."My response:Con ignored the root words of these two terms that clearly show that gnosticism explains what you claim to know, and theism explains what you claim to believe.If someone doesn't claim to know of god, they are agnostic.If someone doesn't claim to believe in god, they are atheist.Do you know of god?Yes, I'm gnostic.No, I'm agnostic.Do you believe in god?Yes, I'm a theist.No, I'm an atheist.One could be a/an:1. gnostic theist - knows of god, and believes in god2. agnostic theist - doesn't know of god, but believes in god3. gnostic atheist - knows of god, but doesn't believe in god4. agnostic atheist - doesn't know of god, and doesn't believe in god.I hope this clears up any confusion on the matter, and I hope people see why atheism is the null hypothesis on the BELIEF in god, not the knowledge of god.Also, Con, just because the two words have "-ism" as a suffix, doesn't make them a belief system.Con, are these words belief systems?-prismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...-alcoholismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...-seismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...-algorismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Therefore, Con's reasoning, that agnosticism and atheism are both belief systems because of their "ism" component, is flawed.Con whines:"Your claims are not based on evidence. They are based on what you are presupposing."My response:My claims are that quantum fluctuations exist,http://physics.aps.org...that cosmic microwave background radiation indicates that a hot dense state, the big bang, is the origin of our universe,http://aether.lbl.gov...and that unstable quantum fluctuations explain the origin of this hot dense state, our universe.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...Con, why are these sources not considered evidence, and how am I presupposing?Con posits:"Can you reproduce or demonstrate the truth of the claim that quantum fluctuations and naturalism can account for everything we know to exist? (Including life, time, space, energy, mass, information, the laws of physics, and consciousness)"My response:I've reproduced the truth of the claim that quantum fluctuations account for the origins of the universe, which explains matter, energy, space, time, information and the laws of physics; at the big bang, matter and all of its properties originated.Life and consciousness come way after matter/energy, but I'll explain that too.After the big bang, the afterglow light pattern, and the dark ages (check my big bang model 2nd round) lots of clouds of gas, nebula, were coalescing and forming galaxies and thus planets thanks to gravity.Our iron planet coalesced from an accretion disk, and this, with the help of gravity, drew matter into the central massive body we call the earth.Once you have this earthly planet, abiogenesis explains the origin of earthly life:Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methionine"When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."http://www.pnas.org...So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.But what about genetic replication?Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.According to the NIH:"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids."catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.Consciousness is contingent on neural substrates, which come from life.According to Cambridge University:"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states"http://fcmconference.org...Con boldly claims:"God exists outside of space and time and is uncreated / eternal."My response:What mechanism does god use to exist outside of time and still create the universe, and, what evidence do you have for higher dimensions?According to the string theory:"We stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."http://mkaku.org...