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

I think I should stress here that my burden is to justify the disbelief in or rejection of a creator of the universe, per the accepted definition of god in this debate.Thus atheism in this debate is the disbelief in this creator.1. Atheism and AgnosticismCon has issues with the difference between atheism and agnosticism.Unfortunately, for this debate, the difference between the two terms is irrelevant.As long as the term "atheism," as defined in round 1 and accepted by Con in Round 2, is the disbelief in a creator of the universe, agnosticism is irrelevant here.Fortunately, I love to teach, and one of my specializations within my major was linguistics...So, the base of the two words "agnosticism" and "atheism" cannot be overlooked, and the etymology proves such.The base word gnostic:gnostic (adj.)"relating to knowledge," especially mystical or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things, 1650s, from Greek gnostikos "knowing, good at knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood,"http://etymonline.com...gnostic - pertaining to knowledgehttp://dictionary.reference.com...The base word theism:theism (n.)1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe"http://etymonline.com...theism - the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universehttp://dictionary.reference.com...The term gnostic answers questions about KNOWLEDGE.The term theist answers questions about BELIEF.Though Con wishes to put "agnostic" and "atheist" on the same sliding scale, they are not gradations of each other, because knowledge is a subset of belief; one could use information (knowledge) to influence one's confidence (belief), but it's not absolutely necessary.Gnostics claim to know.Theists claim to believe.Agnostics claim to not know.Atheists claim to not believe.In fact, one could not claim to know something, but still believe it to be so, and, conversely, one could claim to know something and still disbelieve it.Atheism, not agnosticism, is the null hypothesis on the belief in god, which is a default position; until there is demonstrable, replicable evidence, we cannot reject the null.This seems justifiable to do.So, obviously Con is still debating an atheist; I do not believe that the universe was created, thus I do not believe in a creator of the universe, which is god in this debate.Con surmises:"It seems to be typical for a self-proclaimed atheist to want to retreat to the position of agnosticism."My response:Atheism does not gradate to agnosticism; knowledge and belief are different concepts, which makes Con sound silly here.2. My sources speculated?Con pointed to my citation for the existence of quantum fluctuations, claiming it admitted speculation.However, the speculation was not in regards to the existence of quantum fluctuations; they are a fact.The speculation, in this article, was that the universe was a result of quantum fluctuations.http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...So, the source accurately supports the existence of quantum fluctuations, as I intended it to do, thus its speculations on the universe are irrelevant.But the WMAP space shuttle probe used by NASA didn't speculate when it detected the quantum fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (proof of the big bang) that match the thermal variations detected in vacuum fluctuations.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...Hey Con, are there speculations in this source?I invite readers to check all of my sources; they're easy, interesting reads.3. Quantum fluctuations with stative space VS Quantum fluctuations without stative space.I had mentioned about pre-universe quantum fluctuations that there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.Con asks:"What about the fact that any experiment being done already has space, time, energy, and matter present in the universe?"My response:I already addressed this 2nd round, but here it is again.The vacuum fluctuations we've detected, of course, were discovered in our universe which has space and time.http://physics.aps.org...Hey Con, do you see any speculations in these conclusions?However, before the universe, there was no space or time.Let me make this clear again.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. While the sub nuclear particles are not matter, because they never statively exist, once the big bang occured, matter and energy were able to remain, which allowed space and time to remain.Matter dictates space and time.No stative matter, no stative space or time.Con continues:"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"My response:Nope.Since quantum fluctuations without stative space are an unstable state, stative energy is guaranteed to result.At our universe's origins, space was so small that the otherwise "flicker"of energy from quantum fluctuations was proportionally powerful in space the size of a sub nuclear particle.4. The Big BangI sourced the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation indicates that our universe was once a hot dense point which then expanded out essentially evenly.Con contends:"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?"My response:While I reject that "temperature parts" communicate, Con has forgotten that the big bang's dense state was all one thing before space expanded.So imagine a deflated balloon with a picture on it...the picture's matter is condensed, but as the balloon expands, the picture expands too, and would indicate that this expansion of the picture is uniform, and that the different parts of the picture need not "communicate." This is like our CMB radiation.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...Con mentions:"Random nonuniformities in the expanding universe are not sufficient to allow the formation of galaxies."My response:It's not the anisotropy that allows for galaxy formation. Coalescence and gravitational instability of gas rich nebula allow for the formation of large-scale galaxies in the universe.http://iopscience.iop.org...5. The laws of quantum mechanics.I mentioned that in quantum mechanics, laws we associate with macro scale physics do not apply.So Con says:"Or does the universe consist of 1 particle?"My response:No.Though the universe's origins are largely due to quantum mechanics, galaxies and planets follow classical physics, because they are on that macro scale, the only one Con is aware of.I must cite Con 1st round, with their claim of "ACTUAL science such as established laws."Con mentions:"The law of conservation of matter 'Matter can be neither created nor be destroyed.'"My response:So, Con believes in a creator of the universe, which I adamantly reject.The universe is made of matter and space.Therefore, Con believes that matter and space were created, which violates the very law Con cites.Con how do you reconcile this?Also Con, please look at all of my sources before claiming speculation on particular concepts.Oh, and if Con wishes to get around to it, Con should address the idea that creation is a temporal concept, contingent on time, and before the universe there was no stative time, so there could not be creation...