Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Thank you for your speedy response. I am going to first refute con's opening case and then I will defend my opening statements. It is certainly a great pleasure to be able to debate with you.Con 1: The Cosmological Argument I agree that something exists. However, my opponent mis-understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass. The first Law of Thermodynamics basically states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. [1] Indeed, as Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton points out: "The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. "The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this." [2] So the entire case collapses right then and there.To further refute the point, Paul Tobin has pointed this out:It should first be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.Finally, my opponent's understanding of entropy is mistaken. He states, "The Universe cannnot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occured. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old." To quote Richard Carrier on this issue [3]: In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system. In summar, my opponent's case has failed. Con 2: TAGTo entirely refute TAG, I will present Michael Martin's version of TANG [4]: How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false. Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false. Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG. References and Footnotes1. Interestingly, there are exceptions to this Law. In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the Law of Energy Conservation is a cornerstone of classic physics. However, the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. See Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. 2. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory. January 25, 2006. <http://www.talkorigins.org... >. 3. Carrier, R. Entropy Explained. 2005. <http://www.infidels.org... >.4. Martin, M. The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God. 1996. <http://www.infidels.org...;