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

I'm not going to quote some of the arguments my opponent used as they are drawn out and come to faulty conclusions anyways. I will just describe the issue. As per the terms you, as an atheist (rejecting God) must convince the reader that somehow your view holds water and has the power to convince somebody with no prior bias. That is to say as supposed to any other competing teaching or belief system. If you fail to provide the means to make atheism more viable or true than the rest then you have not provided anything with any convincing power. 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? The semantics game can be funny. I won't go into a long rabbit hole of an explanation to address what is not that hard to understand. Agnosticism and atheism are both belief systems. They are both isms. They both pertain to belief/disbelief in God. You can go to the root word all you want but it doesn't change the meaning of the actual words in question. Apparently, you would like to create your own definitions which do not line up with the actual definition of the word. Still, I will debunk your assertion right now. In the definition given for agnostic it clearly says "a person who DOES NOT BELIEVE or is UNSURE". Therefore, disbelief does not mark a difference between the 2 terms. The only marker that distinguishes the 2 is the doctrine that there is no God. In other words, a truth claim that there is no God. Whereas an agnostic, being the default position, either disbelieves (but not holding to doctrine that God certainly doesn't exist), is currently unsure, or believes there is no way to be certain either way. You yourself made the very precise truth claim which you now cannot back up which was the following: "the origins of the universe do not allow for creation or a creator" Therefore, you DO take PRECISELY the position which you retreat from all of a sudden. It is not merely a disbelief in the loose sense of the term like an agnostic, but to go as far as to say it is impossible that the universe could've been created. Therefore, having the inquisitive mind and consciousness that God gave me, I would like to ask for the EVIDENCE. Your claims are not based on evidence. They are based on what you are presupposing. It is the fact that you go into your analysis excluding the possibility of there being a God from the very start. So how can you ever find evidence of something when you refuse to investigate the evidence with an open mind? Your own mind is the only thing prohibiting the possibility of there being a God. You somehow, in your infinite wisdom and knowledge have declared, at the very least in your own mind, there is no God. You are somehow so certain of this that you have no need to even consider it. Do you expect to reach some kind of groundbreaking discovery about something that you have already decided is not valid or worth considering? This null hypothesis you keep talking about has no place in something as complex as origins. There are certain things that we will never have hard evidence for. Does that mean we should not inquire about them? Should we never use our imagination to run tests and come to conclusions? Should we turn to you to see what you deem to be considered as evidence? What is worthy of inquiry and what is not? I have some questions that I trust won't be too difficult, as you claim that the universe does not allow for a Creator. What investigations have you personally done to prove/disprove the existence of God? 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) "The speculation, in this article, was that the universe was a result of quantum fluctuations." That is the assertion (speculation) in question. At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter much what can or does exist now. What matters is what can and did exist then, if anything at all. You cannot even prove that the particle didn't already exist definitively can you? Can you prove that it isn't a preexisting particle which slipped through a different dimension for a flicker of a moment? No, you cannot. What you're doing is taking something that you know little about, running with it, and assuming that it can live up to all the speculations you've attributed to it. This grasping at straws has done little to convince. "cosmic microwave background radiation (proof of the big bang)" I've already presented powerful evidence that the big bang doesn't add up, yet you seem to have looked right past it and continue to call it "proof of the big bang". Again, it calls into question what you do and do not accept as evidence. It appears as though the criteria for what you allow as evidence is that which will make your naturalistic worldview seem possible. You discard the data which contradicts your theories, forget the immense holes in naturalism, and cling to speculative beliefs to support it. Except they don't. Even if you could somehow make the big bang from nothing seem possible, it still wouldn't follow, therefore there is certainly no God. We don't know what a creation fingerprint would look like for sure to say. You keep saying "Hey Con, do you see any speculations in these conclusions?" as you misrepresent what I even meant. There is some data to interpret. Some things can be considered to be true until proven wrong, others are mere speculation and will never be proven one way or another possibly. You appear to give more credence to the latter. "Let me make this clear again." Making it clear for the 1st time will suffice. Without all the run around in the form of complicated incomplete explanations. The paper you cite says it is impossible to form a theory around it yet you seem to feel capable of taking this as far as you like. As if you've stumbled across a gold mine, except, it's only fool's gold since you cannot demonstrate it or prove that it is indeed possible. Or can you demonstrate/prove exactly what these fluctuations are, that they have always occurred (eternally), and why they occur at all? "When there was no stative space or time, both space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles in quantum fluctuations." Translation: When space and time did not exist, both space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with particles (of which very little is known) that cannot be proven to have preexisted the universe. I also would like to point out that you do believe in the eternal. I believe God is eternal. You believe either energy/particles/both exist eternally. What it boils down to so far is you have the choice between God and magic particles which somehow exist yet don't exist forever and are capable of accidentally making an entire universe with life, laws, information, consciousness, etc. Big Bang I will not present further evidence for now as I've already exposed at least 4 major issues with it that the scientific community all agree upon. If my opponent feels like he has all the answers that are missing (which the respective scientists in the field have NOT claimed to have solved), I would suggest he write a peer reviewed paper so we can get this news out that it has finally been solved. Then we could use it as evidence and it wouldn't deprive your brethren of all these answers you have single-handedly uncovered. "The universe is made of matter and space." You seem to have forgotten that more than that exists also, which can be readily detected. Information, laws, consciousness, etc. "Con believes that matter and space were created" It would follow that the Creator of said laws, energy, etc. would be able to. "creation is a temporal concept" God exists outside of space and time and is uncreated / eternal.