Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

It appears I have two ways I can win this debate. I can show that atheism is more logical than theism in regards to the origin of everything or vice verse. Pro has to show that they're just the same. If one is any bit more logical than the other, then he can't win the debate. The resolution includes the words "just as" which implies that they are equally illogical. This in itself poses an argument against pro because on balance of likelihood we can only reasonably assert one must be more logical than the other. By the law of excluded middle we can establish the true dichotomy that either God exists or God does not exist. Thus, either theism is true, or atheism is true. And which ever one is true, it necessarily follows, the origin of everything must logically correspond with it. This means one version must be logical, therefore not illogical. I'll put it in a syllogism to make it easy.P.1 Either God exists, or God does not exist. (Law of excluded middle)P.2 Thus, either theism is correct, or atheism is correct. P.3 In order for theism or atheism to be correct, it must logically correspond with reality. P.4 The origin of everything must also logically correspond with reality. P.5 Either theism or atheism logically corresponds with the origin of everything. P.6 Either theism or atheism is not illogical. C: Theism and atheism are not equally illogical in regards to the origin of everything.Pro states that atheists believe everything came from nothing. Well he'll have to explain what he means by that. Is he talking about the philosophical understanding of nothingness or the scientific meaning? Furthermore, why must atheists believe everything came from this "nothing"? It does seem counter intuitive to say something could come from nothing. But atheists don't need to be stuck there because there are two explanations for why things exist. Everything exists either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause. If everything existed by an external cause, then we would have a problem, but that's not the case. One example of an abstract form of necessary existence would be the law of non-contradiction; something cannot be both equal to A and not equal to A. This exists in all possible worlds because it is impossible to conceive of a world without it. All, or most, abstract concepts of logic, we can establish as necessary but what is abstract is not physical/material. So now we have to wander why there is anything other than abstract existence. Well, we don't know. But we can still derive that the material world exists necessarily because if it did not, it would not exist. That's because if it weren't necessary it would be contingent. But if it were contingent there would be nothing to cause it. So we know it's necessary because we observe that it exists. This much we can gather and it gives us a clearly logical understanding of reality. But let me concede momentarily my opponents two assertions about theism and atheism. If these were indeed true, does it not seem the atheist view is a little less illogical? When we look at the second assertion, all it really boils down to is saying everything came from nothing too. It just adds God in as well as part of everything. So everything, according to the atheist, would be all the material things we see while everything, according to the theist, would be that, plus God. Occam's razor can be applied here. Doesn't it seem a stretch to say God came from nothing. I mean it's one thing to say matter came about ex-nihilo, but to say some omniscient, omnipotent, deity just popped out of nothing? Doesn't that raise an eyebrow or two? The atheistic view seems much more reasonable and less illogical. (Remember, I'm just assuming my opponents portrayal of the atheistic/theistic worldview momentarily in order to refute it) Moreover, as science is continually filling gaps in our knowledge, more and more is God becoming obsolete. God used to be used to explain all the unknown parts of the natural world. It used to be for things such as rain, thunder and the sun. Now science gives a purely natural explanation for those. For a long time God seemed the only answer to the biological order of life. Then Darwin came along. Now we are finding more answers about cosmology and the physical nature of the universe that require no God. Theoretical physics proves that this universe is not all there is. There is a multiverse which consists of many other universes.[1] Either one universe exists or multiple universes exist. There are wholly plausible arguments for the multiverse theory but not any for the single universe really. For example, the amount of dark matter can only be explained by the multiverse as Brian Greene explains, “The spectacular failure of attempts to explain the amount of dark energy has raised questions about this confidence, driving some physicists to pursue a radically different explanatory approach, one that suggests (once again) the possible existence of a multiverse.” [3] The amount of dark energy is not conceivable under the single universe theory, but with the multiverse, it is very much so. Now, before pro starts asking what caused the multiverse, it does not need to exist within space and time, meaning it does not necessarily need an external cause. According to Kaku, the multiverse is an 11-dimensional arena. You cannot go higher than 11. There are bubbles that float in this arena. The skin of the bubble represents a universe. "So we're like flies trapped on fly paper". Our universe is a three dimensional bubble but you can also get 4 and 5 dimensional bubbles. Bubbles expand and can sometimes bump into each other which would explain the big-bang.[2] Thus we have a theory of the big-bang that does not require a divine cause. The origin of our universe is clearly plausible without the need for God.Furthermore Stephen Hawking theorizes that the big-bang was an inevitable occurrence because of gravity. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper & set the universe going."[4] General relativity can be combined with quantum theory to explain the origin of the universe. The two theories combined “predicted that small fluctuations would develop & lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non uniformities in the cosmic microwave background, with exactly the predicted properties.”[5]So I have given two plausible natural explanations of the universe. Now what of the seemingly fine-tuning of the universe? Well the multiverse, which I've already made an argument for, has one answer to it. Think of the vastness of our own universe. Now think of the fact that there is a whole multiverse. The size of the multiverse entails vast potential so that very fitted conditions for life would be not only probable but quite inevitable. We could say the positioning of all the planets & such had a small chance to be fitted just right but when you consider the multiverse, it's inevitable that conditions would exist somewhere that would be just right for life to exist. To put my argument in perspective, imagine a googolplex universe. In a googolplex universe, the potential for the certain arrangements of matter & molecules would be so incredibly large that in all probability, if you were to travel through it, you would most likely come across an exact replica of yourself![6] It is completely conceivable to believe that via chance, a fitted condition for life would arise.So in conclusion, wherever knowledge is found, God is being pushed out as a possible answer and atheism is more logical than theism in regards to the origin of everything. http://goo.gl...