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

Thanks for the debate Con.I'm glad that Con accepts the definitions provided for "god" and "atheism," so that my burden is to justify the rejection of a creator of the universe.I therefore affirm the resolution that atheism is justifiable, because without a big bang, there was neither stative time nor the passage thereof to allow for a moral creator to exist and then create the universe; creation is a temporal process, contingent on time, thus, without a universe and time, creator-->created couldn't have occurred.1. So what is atheism?Atheism is not really a presupposition, rather it's a default position.In science, you cannot reject the null hypothesis until the hypothesis has been demonstrated and replicated; the null hypothesis is the default position.http://www.biology-online.org...Atheism is the null hypothesis for the existence of god; until there's a demonstration of god's existence, the default position is the null...atheism.This, to me, is the exact opposite of presupposing; it's reserving your presuppositions about causation and correlation until there's evidence, which is justifiable to do.Presupposing would be to assume a necessary agent where none has been demonstrated, and this is the position of the theist.2. Quantum fluctuations = nothing, an unstable state.First, I want everyone to think of the most basic existence of something...like down to the most basic level of what something is...atoms, particles, radiation, matter/energy itself.Imagine this most basic physical existence, the smallest possible amount of matter/energy.Now imagine that we could strip away this physical existence and be left with no matter/energy, no radiation, no particles or wavelengths of light, nothing, only empty space.Ok, so now, everyone can stop imagining, because particle physics has already accomplished this.In our universe of space and matter, the removal of all matter/energy/particles/radiation/wavelengths, using a vacuum, leaves us with empty space, and this empty space is filled with quantum fluctuations.http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate as well.I have to make this point perfectly clear.These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case everywhere.But the sub nuclear particles are something, right?Nope.They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.What is nothing?It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.But what if we remove these fluctuations, that would be true nothing, right?Even if you try to remove these fluctuations, they remain ubiquitous, thus you can never reach nothing without quantum fluctuations.This video explains the concept quite well.Again, the absence of something leaves us with empty space filled with quantum fluctuations, which, because they exist and are annihilated immediately, are in fact nothing; quantum fluctuations are the nothing state, and are always there ubiquitously.Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured them in detail.http://physics.aps.org...But when there was no universe, "before the big bang" as people refer to it, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.Without a universe, in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition before the big bang, which is a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity. So, again, there was no stative time or space in "pre-big bang" fluctuations; both space and time are contingent on the sub nuclear particles, so space and time couldn't remain, and instead continually fluctuated in and out of existence.These quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang.3. The Big BangThe big bang left cosmic microwave background radiation behind.With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.http://aether.lbl.gov...NASA has measured it with an anisotropy probe located on a space shuttle called WMAP.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...The radiation is basically uniform except for minor thermal variations proportional to the variations we've measured in quantum fluctuations.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...With light, longer rays of light are in the red end of the spectrum while shorter rays of light are in the blue end of the spectrum.When we look out at other galaxies, the light that hits us is in the red end of the spectrum (red shift) indicating that the light is being elongated, or stretched out as the senders of the light, other galaxies, are moving away from us and we from them thanks to inflation, which started at the big bang.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...This all indicates that our universe is currently expanding or inflating, which means that it had to be very small in its origin.The energy expressed from quantum fluctuations at the big bang allowed for space, which was extremely small, so even though the energy wasn't very potent, proportionally to such small space, this energy allowed for space to expand.The universe originated at the big bang, from an unstable nothing state of quantum fluctuations that contain no stative time or space, and this does not allow for a creator or creation; this indicates that time itself did not exist until the universe began, thus negating a temporal concept like creation, before the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...4. Laws of quantum mechanics.Already Con has mentioned:"Anybody with some sense knows nothing just pops up out of nowhere."My response:That's a perfectly valid assertion when talking about things on a macro scale, because all physical things we see come from other physical things we see.When talking about physics on a quantum scale however, one particle can exist in two places at the same time, come into existence from nothing, be affected by things done to other particles (entanglement), and be annihilated randomly. So, unlike on our macro physics scale, where something must come from something else, on a quantum scale, annihilation and existence serve as the fluctuating variables responsible for "where things come from."Quantum mechanics explains this counter intuitive realm with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.https://en.wikipedia.org...This is not simply theoretical; it is a demonstrated fact of existence.Con posits:"How amazed would you be to witness any one thing come into existence?"My response:As amazed as I was when I read the peer reviewed studies that I've already provided that demonstrate this idea.Next round I intend to address Con's contentions, one by one.