atheist are right

It appears that I only have to convince people that atheists are wrong, this shouldn't a very tough position. First, I will rebut my opponent's overly simplistic opening statement. That was not an argument in favor of atheism's truthfulness, merely a claim that atheism makes more claims than theism. Atheism is simply about NOT believing in the existence of a god, hence the prefix "a" on the word "theism." All gods have a complex explanation and surrounding ideas. This means that Atheism actually has LESS answers.I will open with one of my favorite quotes: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker, but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool." " Voltaire Think about it, think about our world. Think about the ways our world could become like it is without a creator. There are only two base answers, with variations upon them. These are; 1: the material and nature for our universe have existed for infinity, and formed everything in existence by random changes, and 2: everything and it's nature, including time and space (time probably as a result of space) spontaneously began to exist from nothingness.#1: This is obviously the likeliest answer. Everything seems to need a beginning, however this is not much of an argument. My main argument against this is essentially what Voltaire said. It is possible, of corse, that the universe and everything in it could form as it is by spontaneity, but this is hardly probable. The chances for this are incredibly small, and as our knowledge grows, become even smaller. When you see a watch (lets use the spring powered type for consistency), you Immediately recognize it as one. You assume that it was created, not that it was assembled by random acts of weather. Suppose that you had never seen one before, you would certainly still assume that it had been created by man, after brief examination. How is it that you think that the universe, which is much more complex and specific, was not created?I believe that I can answer that. Suppose that you had never seen a real watch, but were told when you were young that Watches are amazing results of a rare type of volcanic activity. You then saw a watch years later. You would probably say How amazing it is that something so intricate and useful could form without intelligent guidance. You would say this because you have been put into that mode of thinking, then you would look for evidence to show the watch-creeationists. Only until you study the actual watch in detail,might you consider otherwise. It is what we are told when we are young, by those we trust, that we believe. We are then put into that rut of thinking, and rarely exit, because we find the evidence which supports our views, and sometimes even blatantly dismiss opposing evidence without good reason. When we examine the actual thing under debate is when we may change our views. You may say that you wouldn't believe the person after seeing the watch. I don't believe this for a moment. When people are told they are worthless, they start to believe so. When people are told they are skilled, they also start to believe that regardless of the evidence. We could even do an experiment if you wish. I believe that mushrooms grow out of the ground from a fibrous root-like structure under the ground. I never see this structure, and I never see the mushrooms grow, yet I believe this statement to be true. If someone were to question my belief, I would research to find evidence for it. The second method is extremely unlikely. I doubt that anyone reading this is actually considering this, but I'll talk about it anyway. The obvious: We have a very well tested scientific law that says that nothing can come from nothing, but only nothing. In other words, all matter and energy may change, but can not come from nothing. It is never created or destroyed. What about the nature of things, what about space, what about time? All of this has to exist. If there was matter, but it had no nature, then it did not exist, for it is by it's nature that it has significance. Can we have matter without space? no. Where would the matter be? No-where, which means that it would again, be nothing. Thank you for the debate, I am already enjoying it. I believe that I will leave my arguments at that, and wait for you.