Atheism is more probable than Theism.

I should point out that this past round was for opening statements only and rebuttals should begin in this round. Moreover, the burden of proof is shared, so in the next reply, please present your arguments in favour of God's existence. Part 1: Evidential ArgumentsContention 1: Evil and SufferingMy opponent's sole response is the argument from free will. However, the argument is lacking and unconvincing. Paul Tobin argues [1]: But the free will explanation cannot even satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all powerful, he could have created all man with free will and with a predisposition towards doing good. But according to the same theologians, man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. God's action in giving man free-will and at the same time giving him a predisposition towards doing bad is no different morally from a man who drinks, on purpose, in front of a recently reformed alcoholic! If we describe such a man as irresponsible and immoral, why do we persist in calling such a God good? The abstraction “man” used above is also misleading. All of mankind have free-will; some, a small minority, some men-and women-, chose evil and rob, kill, cheat and maim. Are the more numerous victims to be consoled by saying that this is a consequence of their (the victims) having free will? In other words, are the innocent victims somehow responsible for the crimes on themselves because they have free will? The right to be protected from crimes is basic for all citizens in the world; any government that fails to deliver a reasonable amount of protection from these would be condemned and duly removed from power. Yet somehow it is okay for the all powerful God to give men free will and allow them to suffer the consequences from the minority who misuse it. To say that all will be rectified in the afterlife where the good will be rewarded in heaven and the bad will be punished in hell does not resolve the issue. As George H. Smith observes: [N]o appeal to an afterlife can actually eradicate the problem of evil. An injustice always remains an injustice, regardless of any subsequent effort to comfort the victim. If a father, after beating his child unmercifully, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving. Yet, this is exactly what the Judeo-Christians claims their God to do. He allows the faithful to suffer (remember Job! ) and later rewards them. This God cannot, by any moral yardstick, be called good. My opponent argues because the fall of man affected all of creation, it can therefore explain natural evil. However, that too is unconvincing. Why should we suffer for the sins of Adam? My opponent brings up a Biblical verse to prove that point; namely, Adam's sin affected all of Creation. However, Ezekiel 18:20 states this:The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. If this were to be true, why are so many pepole suffering for Adam's sin? Contention 2: DemographicsPlease do forgive me, but I cannot make out what you are trying to argue. I do not see what your argument is. Please expand on it in the next rebuttal round. Part II: Logical ArgumentsContention 3: Argument from IncoherenceMy opponent's reply is a non-answer. I never stated God must be defined by one word. By incoherence, I don't mean that the definition of God is incoherent, rather I mean it is impossible: like a square circle. I gave two attributes of God that are contradictory: Free will and Omnipotent; and Incomprehendible versus Indescribable. I await your reply. References1. Tobin, P. (2000) "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. "