Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Thank you for your swift response. I have been super busy this weekend with work and school. As such, I may not be able to get all of my arguments in. Therefore, I will focus most on your argument for God's existence.Part I: Response to Opponent's Arguments for God's ExistenceRebuttal A: Moral Argument for God's ExistenceMy opponent's sole opening argument for God's existence is the moral argument; namely, if there is evil, then there must be some moral code to live by. In logical syllogism form, we have this:Premise 1: If objective moral facts exists, then God exists.Premise 2: Objective moral facts exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.To refute this, I wish to bring something that has been presented long ago:"Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"This is called the Euthyphro's Dilemma. We can put the Euthyphro's Dilemma in logical syllogism format: Either: The Good is willed by God because it is the Good. The Good is the Good because it is willed by God. If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God’s will. If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator. If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God’s will). If (4) is true, then there is no objective standard of morality, and the absolute of value-selection is false. The standard response (at least the response I have seen) is that it is a false dichotomy: the third option would be that it is subjected to God's nature. However, this too is subject to the same dilemma, as Michael Martin notes:[A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?[2] Secondly, this does not automatically follow that God exists. In order for my opponent's argument to be sound, my opponent MUST show: 1) That there are objective moral facts; and 2) These facts must have come from God. It is logically possible for there to be no morality. In this case, it appears that this is an undesirable case; however, we see the wishful thinking in the logical format: If god does not exist, condition A follows. Condition A is undesirable. One should not believe in undesirable conditions. Third, what role does God play in morality? As Grant Petersen notes [4]: Problem of subjectivity: Who is to say that god's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's? With no guarantee that objective morality even exists (philosophers are still arguing about that one) could one be sure that god's opinion is not any less subjective than yours or mine? Problem of displaced subjectivity: The god theory does not effectively refute any of the arguments against objective morality, it simply passes the buck. Humans disagree on moral questions, so why not invoke gods? What if the gods disagree among themselves, would they, in turn, appeal to super-gods? And what about the super-gods? It seems a bit like an infinite pile of turtles. Problem of circular reasoning: Define god as the only possible source of objective morality. Then assume that objective morality exists. Use this as "proof" that god exists. Problem of interpretation: Assume for a moment that god's morals are, in fact, superior to human morals: how is one to determine what those morals or values consist of? Some ancient writings and the somewhat dubious interpretations of priests, etc., are all that we have to go on. Even if god knows what is morally right or wrong, the fact that we do not know what he knows makes the point moot. Problem of numerous gods: Through the ages there have been many different religions with many different gods, all of which seemed to have somewhat differing opinions about morality, ranging from human sacrifice to cannibalism. Which one was right? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Finally, altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice-all of those things that hold society together - can now be confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. Morality evolved … as a form of social control, conflict resolution and group cohesion. [4] Without such, society as a whole cannot exist.I hope I have managed to, at the very least, cast doubt on the moral argument for God's existence and to convince the reader that God is not necessary for morality. The fact of the matter is that we can explain morality from a natural standpoint (we can debate this next, if you would like); moreover, I feel that with the Euthyphro's Dilemma, the argument is immediately refuted with the fact that the argument is logically fallacious.Once again, I apologize for these short statements and I apologize for not responding sooner. I will allow you in the next round to defend only your opening statements; please do not add anything to it or rebut my opening arguments further. If you would like, we may amend the 5th round to include VERY BRIEF defenses and polishes on our statements.I bounch it back to you._______________________________________________________________________________________________References1. http://www.strongatheism.net...;2. http://www.infidels.org...;3. Tobin, P. (2000). "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager."