Atheism is more probable than Theism.

First argumentCosmological argument• Something exists. (the universe)• You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.We can we infer things about Him from what He created• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)• He must be eternal (self-existent).• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).• He must be timeless (He created time).• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.Second ArgumentTAGHow do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature. RebuttalsA and CA and C are in a sense the same argument. So I will respond to them both here.The argument is a non-sequiter. The argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it." For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about. That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined. But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not necessarily mean that it did not occur. As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean. That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true. And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false. When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his faith that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source. In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it. Finally, the fact that we do not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false. Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist. BExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? If someone who plays jokes on you all the time tells you he won the lottery, your presuppositions are to think he is playing a joke on you. But if someone you trust such as your mom tells this to you will probably believe it on face value. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. To say its false solely on no evidence given is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy[1] There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists.This is your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no strong evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? Sources(1) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...