Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[Mister Agenda]

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

Nope. It's just the version of reality with the fewest made-up entities. The 'rational' in rational skepticism means that skepticism isn't taken to useless extremes, such as denying reality. If you accept reality as a brute fact, there is at least naturalism. Convincing evidence that there is more to reality than naturalism is needed for believing that more than naturalism is reasonably justified.

Its quit simple. You can think, right ?

You don't get any prizes for asking especially stupid rhetorical questions.

how could transformation, or evolution, of dead matter, happen to self conscience and thougt ?

Abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection.

Its simply not possible.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

There is no bridge from one thing to the other.

Self-replicating proteins, single-celled organisms, multi-celled organisms, organisms with brains, organisms with bigger brains, organisms with consciousness (including cetaceans, great apes, and elephants). Seems like a lot of bridges to get from inanimate matter to consciousness and thought.

So by the very own existence of hability of thought, you can deduce logically God exists.

Even if everything you just said had been valid, 'therefore, God' would still be a non sequitur.

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.

And we'll believe one of them (or some other hypothesis) when there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so. Currently they are merely hypothetical, possibilities that do not contradict math or known physics. And there's reason to think the 'absolute nothingness' you refer to is impossible: there likely never was 'absolutely nothing'. To summarize: those aren't claims, they're possibilities. Here's a claim: there is insufficient evidence for anyone to reasonably claim they know the origin of our cosmos with certainty.

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible.

That's a claim that requires not only evidence, but conclusive proof.

If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist.

I don't disagree that it's likely our cosmos began to exist, but until you prove that actual infinities cannot exist, this line of argumentation can't prove the cosmos must have begun to exist.

Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite.

If I agree with you, then I MUST conclude that no entity could possibly have existed eternally without a beginning. Is that really where you want to go with this?

From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology.

It equally supports the notion that prior to the cosmic inflation, the universe was in a very hot, dense state. Whether that came from quantum vacuum or always existed in some form is in the realm of hypothetical physics at this point.

The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology.

This is a delusion.

Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

We're in an eternal universe. It will suffer heat death, but it will never cease to exist. And if you're going to quote the laws of thermodynamics as applying to universes, remember the first one that says energy cannot be created or destroyed: if thermodynamics applies to universes, then energy/matter have existed eternally, since they cannot be created.

we theists have it pretty easy to have faith in Gods existence.

Faith is easy. Thinking is hard work.

The evidence is obvious.

As obvious as the sun going around the earth.

In the counterpart, its a hard struggle for the thinking atheist to deny God......and must be indeed quit frustrating.

The thinking atheist doesn't deny God. We just don't believe the people who claim God is real are justified by evidence and reason. A factor in that is those people have never been able to present an argument for God that is both valid and has reasonable premises.

I don't believe you for pretty much the same reasons I don't believe people claiming to be UFO abductees were really kidnapped by aliens: I don't deny they had some kind of experience, but I doubt it was what they think it was.