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

In conclusion: Round 1: I clearly state, "Use round 1 to accept and simply state why you are an atheist and specifically what position you will defend." My opponent responds with: "the origins of the universe do not allow for creation or a creator". Notice though that the only scrap of "evidence" brought forward to disprove God (and excuse being totallly close minded) was the assertion that there was no time as we know it, therefore it's impossible. However, he admits that something WAS possible (and obviously something happened), but for some reason has ruled out God. For some reason he can conceive of particles existing and not existing forever, which can accidentally create everything we know of, but cannot conceive of God being able to exist in a similar or different fashion. His "proof" relies on what he can or cannot conceive in his mind, nothing more. In his mind he believes God is not a possibility based on his preconceived notions. He failed to prove that God can't live outside of our boundaries of time and space just like he failed to prove that fluctuations and particles can. An "explanation" was provided so to speak, however, it is immediately noticeable how very little he knows about his own explanation. I asked simply, can you prove what the fluctuations are and their cause? He had nothing other than the same thing to say, fluctuations happen and there is speculation about whether or not it could cause the universe. If he doesn't even know what they are OR what causes them, how can he be confident enough to cite them as a cause for something else? Also, it just keeps the eternal cycle going of, what caused that, and what caused that? Therefore, the whole argument was not only irrational, but incomplete in explanatory power. I have just as much proof for another dimension as my opponent has for particles certainly not existing yet existing and being eternal then causing our universe, none. But that is the whole point, it seems that his imagination is the only deciding factor. He can imagine particles that exist yet don't eternally, that can cause everything we know of to come into being, or in other words to be created, therefore, it is valid and true. He cannot imagine that the particle already existed in another dimension that is unseen by us and just briefly flickered in and out of our dimension, therefore, it is invalid and false. He cannot imagine God, who exists outside of space and time, just as he claims the magic particles do, therefore, it is invalid and false. He cannot imagine God causing the universe to come into being, or in other words creating it, just as he claims the magic particles did, therefore, it is invalid and false. It's unfortunate that my opponent was never able to address various points and instead squandered the rounds trying to misrepresent terms and conclusions, requiring big long explanations to somehow make his arguments even seem feasible. You may wonder, "Why has pro never said what he means to say in an easy to follow way so we can clearly understand exactly what he's saying?" That's a perfectly valid question and this is the answer: To use these fancy elaborate words is the ONLY conceivable way of saying such things without being immediately detected as being complete and utter garbage. Also, notice that he never brings up one of the main points of my opening argument, the math part, until we're going into the conclusion round showing that he apparently didn't want any part of it. Readers, take a look back and notice the overall feel of the debate. I was straightforward, honest, and presented my case in a simple, easy to follow manner. I presented an ample amount of evidence to support my stance, refuted every last argument my opponent attempted to make, and never resorted to cowardly tactics which only undermine the whole point of debating (to get to the bottom of a subject for the sake of truth and knowledge). It's too bad we can't say the same about my opponent. My opponent would do well to learn the terms he plans on using. Then he could avoid making up his own and making reference to terms that don't even exist outside of some random article or book. I would recommend to all learning what they actually mean from the dictionary. Then you won't fall into the same mistake of misrepresenting terms. You would then know that gnostic is actually defined as: an adherent of gnosticism. Or that gnosticism is defined as: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis. My "claim" that atheism and agnosticism are both belief systems isn't based on the suffix, it is based on the definitions of the words and the real life usage since they were words. I assumed that my opponent had heard the saying of "isms" and that it has nothing to do with a word like prism, so, I will keep in mind for next time to write some type of disclaimer stating that it's only a saying and doesn't mean that every single word we have ever known that has ism in it applies. If it is a spade I will call it that, even if he insists it's actually somehow a diamond. I should also warn the reader that my opponent will consider you to be "whining" if you ask for a conclusion which isn't based on mere speculation and unjustified personal beliefs. I guess he felt he had mixed in enough fact with fiction to pass it off but it is clear that the final conclusions, which is what actually matters, are fundamentally speculative scenarios which are based off other speculations or assumptions and cannot be proven to be possible with certainty, let alone to be absolutely true. As if irrational, incomplete, and speculative arguments weren't enough, we have to add in the false claims that state that I was given an answer as to the origin of information and laws. No argumentation made in any way addressed these matters. Not only does nothing exploding not even happen, but assuming it could, it wouldn't in any way account for laws or information. An explosion cannot cause laws to come into existence just like it can't create information. There was no good explanation given from credible sources for the major problems acknowledged by the scientific community to be associated with the big bang because the whole thing is a big dud. I offered up an experiment which goes leaps and bounds further than any scientist has accomplished in the lab to get life and showed that it doesn't work anyway. This however was overlooked and he continues on to an explanation to life citing an experiment which was proven to be false years ago and fails to mention the problem of oxidation which occurs before life could possibly form. In other words, you need oxygen for life, yet, if you have oxygen it oxidates the substance before it could possibly build up in any significant way. He then continues on as if it weren't flawed from the beginning to show how little he knows of the actual complexity of what it takes to make something alive, functioning, reproducing, etc. As far as the explanation for consciousness, it brings out a previously unknown level of brevity. Maybe because it's not even an explanation, it just states that neural substrates come from life and that some animals also have a level of "consciousness", which I hope everybody already knew. That doesn't really explain why we would see such things occur and doesn't take into account human reasoning and overall mental abilities. My opponent implies that his existence and mind are just a product of chance. Also, that his thoughts are merely a product of nerve signals and chemical reactions. He can't say that my nerve signals and chemical reactions are wrong or false and that his are right or true. There is no such thing as a right/wrong or a true/false nerve signal or chemical reaction. He has no reason to even trust in his own thoughts. Why should we? God bless.