Notes

1) See the distinction between active and passive potencies. Active potency, which is the capacity to bring about an effect, and passive potency, which is the capacity to be affected. Fire’s capacity to melt rubber is an active potency, whereas rubber’s capacity to be melted is a passive potency. God could have all his active potencies and effects already in place and we discover them as we move through time which would render your 2nd and 3rd premise false. Or he could simply not require time to do express his active potency. So 2 is false.

2) Most arguments for God's existence are for God who sustains the universe in being. So even if the flame (universe / effect) is eternal, it is eternally caused by the candle (God / the cause). No candle (cause), no flame (effect). Also, Kalam can work with B-theory (see CJ Metcalfe's A defense of B-theory and the Kalam Cosmological Argument) so this does not help atheism or even dent theism.

3) Complete strawman. Nobody argues that we know the principle of causality is true on the basis of inductive reasoning. Most would give rational demonstrations like "something can not come from nothing" or something of the like.

4) Ok even if I grant this, it does not make atheism any more likely. Maybe something like a multiverse preceeded the big bang. Most arguments for the beginning of the universe are philosophical that do not rest on scientific considerations so that even the multiverse would need a beginning.

5) That's a fallacious non-sequitur. A theory that provides a description without making a reference to X is not the same as a theory that debunks the existence of X or even that the world contains no souls. That would be like saying that Since Kepler's laws make no reference to gravity, they show that the planetary motion occur without gravity.

6) I agree with this point actually .... This does not make atheism any more likely than theism. Ever heard of Calvinism? Islam? All the compatibilist beliefs?

7) Premises 2 and 3 confuse metaphysical possibility with logical possibility. There could have been a possible world where God eternally and timelessly willed to create no universe at all or another possible world where God eternally and timelessly willed to create a different universe.

8) Classical Theism does not believe in the anthropomorphic omnibenevolence trait. That's simply not part of the description of God defended by classical theists for 2000 years (maybe only Anselm). The problem of evil does not show that God does not exist, only that God is not omnibenevolent which we are fine to give. We can only speak about God in analogical ways (see analogy of being). Also, God could balance the suffering in this world with equal reward and goods in the afterlife. That's one way to show that God's existence is consistent with evil. He clearly can not give a reward without some suffering first because of his just nature.

9) This does not disprove God and even you admit this in the text. I can't conceive of a greater being than YHWH so now what? ...

10) God is good because of his ontological nature so no those properties are not good independently of God. God is those properties. God *is* love. God and moral goodness are synonymous.

11) Genetic fallacy.

12) Strawman again. Most cosmological arguments do not rely on intuition to make their case but as Edward Feser, they argue for causal principles on the basis of "strict metaphysical demonstration" and rational proof. It is only even 1 formulation of the Contingency argument that relies on the PSR. Most contingency arguments were formulated before Leibniz and do not rely on the PSR or anything similar. Moral argument objections and Natural evil dealt with above.

13) Religious books are scriptures not books of science.

Dude, literally 11 of your 13 "arguments" do not support atheism over theism. Your only really points worth addressing are 1 and 7. The rest does not even dent theism. Even if I grant you that "religious belief is formed in the brain (11) or that the moral argument is not successful (10) or that libertarian free will is misconceived and some form of compatibilism and determinism is successful (6) or any of your other points do not make atheism any more likely than theism.