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

Let me start off by saying that it shouldn't be held against you when you don't have a need for references because you are using common knowledge and laws that people already know or can very easily verify on the off chance that they don't. If I argued something silly and gave different references that point to different aspects but they don't really add up as a whole, do I defeat my opponent who did not have a need for references but made better, more logical points? Just saying this reference thing opens the door for a potentially flawed outcome, when what should matter is who made more sense and was more convincing overall. I know sometimes references are needed, but what if they really aren't for what you need to say? Also, I reject your definition of atheism. If I wanted to debate an agnostic I would've set it up as such. The honest thing to do would be to get our definitions from the dictionary. The following definitions are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: atheism- a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com... agnostic: a : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not b : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something http://www.merriam-webster.com... It seems to be typical for a self-proclaimed atheist to want to retreat to the position of agnosticism when pressed for any kind of evidence or reasoning as to why they reject the possibility of there being a God. So far all you have had to say about the matter is that it is a default position when it isn't. If you have any good reason at all to consider something it would be damaging to science to not even consider it. Again, the atheist is one who affirms "there is no God". The agnostic is one who says they don't know for sure either way. The Christian affirms that there is a God. I'm not going to go into more because not only do people know this to be true already, but, why not just be honest and call yourself an agnostic? If that's really what you believe? What's the big deal? How have you convinced anybody to be an atheist as supposed to an agnostic or any other thing for that matter? Let me remind everybody that the terms clearly stated: "The reader should vote according to whether or not that person makes a convincing argument (for atheism) compared to my arguments. Does this person's atheistic belief hold water and have the power to convince you or do the opposing arguments make more sense?" So far you have only provided speculative scenarios that would force us to discard the solid science, math, and logic I already listed and the ones to come. As far as the points you tried to make, other than trying to dodge the burden of proof at the beginning, they will be addressed now. In this source that you cite, I believe you may have overlooked some important things, like the conclusion (last page). http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com... "Following similar argument we can SPECULATE that Biological Universe in the macroscopic level is the result of fluctuations." Did you notice that it says speculate now? How much does speculation weigh on you? Are you one to exchange everything you know to be possible for something that can only be described as speculation? Also an important detail you left out is the fact that it states (also on the last page): "It is not possible to build up a theory for non physics content. But looking at the similarity of all the biological and other systems at is possible to make some bold assumptions regarding the existence of fluctuations at the initial stages." Do you put your faith in something that even states is impossible to calculate or make a theory on and is pure "speculation" made on "bold assumptions"? What about the fact that any experiment being done already has space, time, energy, and matter present in the universe? Does that not confine anything dealing with an environment such as this in the speculation category? I personally can't think of a way to truly demonstrate such a thing. Another key thing to point out here is that you left out the part about how our universe would've been a mere flicker if fluctuations were the cause, thus, making it impossible (we are not a mere flicker for certain, and let some people tell it we have been around for a LONG time). These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. However, the effects of these virtual particles can be detected; they are, for instance, responsible for a very subtle effect on the spectrum of the hydrogen atom called the "Lamb shift." The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy. The HUP places a limit on the time that a quantum fluctuation can persist. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last. It is for this reason that virtual particles appear and then disappear after very short intervals. https://www.aip.org... Heres a link you may want to check out too (entitled "Why can't Einstein and Quantum Mechanics get along?": http://www.physics.org... "But the sub nuclear particles are something, right? Nope. They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant," Does our universe exist and not exist at the same time? "the absence of something leaves us with empty space filled with quantum fluctuations," Again, you are working in an environment that already has met various conditions that wouldn't apply to the beginning of everything that we know of such as space, time, and energy. Also I noticed the article you referenced in no way even attempts to make such an assertion such as: this could somehow explain creation. It simply says "These are all prerequisites for more ambitious proposals to exploit quantum effects in these systems for applications in quantum information processing and ultrasenstive force detection. This experiment also suggests the exciting possibility of using optomechanical systems to study fundamental questions involving quantum noise physics in even more complex settings, for example, in the presence of nonlinearities generated by strong optomechanical couplings." "The big bang left cosmic microwave background radiation behind." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... The Horizon Problem The microwave background radiation from opposite directions in the sky is characterized by the same temperature within 0.01%, but the regions of space from which they were emitted at 500,000 years were more than light transit time apart and could not have "communicated" with each other to establish the apparent thermal equilibrium - they were beyond each other's "horizon". One way of expressing the problem is to say that the temperature of parts of space in opposite directions from us is almost exactly the same, but how could they be in thermal equilibrium with each other if they cannot communicate with each other? The Galaxy Formation Problem Random nonuniformities in the expanding universe are not sufficient to allow the formation of galaxies. In the presence of the rapid expansion, the gravitational attraction is too slow for galaxies to form with any reasonable model of turbulence created by the expansion itself. "..the question of how the large-scale structure of the universe could have come into being has been a major unsolved problem in cosmology" Trefil p43 "we are forced to look to the period before 1 millisecond to explain the existence of galaxies." Also check The Flatness Problem and The Antimatter Problem. "That's a perfectly valid assertion when talking about things on a macro scale" Is that not the issue? Or does the universe consist of 1 particle?