God more than likely does not exist

Opening remarks.I thank Con for their spirited reply.I did say last round I was going to get to those other arguments later on so contra con I did not drop them & as such is where I will begin for round 4.Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of needCon made the point that people would claim that they have felt Gods comfort in time of need. I agree. I once again remind Con of that God was defined as..."God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being."Recall the analogy of a loving father that will ensure that their daughter will understand their suffering or at least ensure their loving comfort. So what is going on here ? does such a God exist and is being selective with it's comfort ? perhaps. Or perhaps rather the so called comfort that some people find is a product of their own minds and internalized religious beliefs rather than from a divine source.I submit the latter is the more plausible option.God & the best possible world (or not)Con presents various possibilities in this area but makes no argument for why they should be accepted as more likely true than false. This does nothing against my argument here cause my argument is NOT that it is with absolute certainty we don't live in the best possible world just the more modest, more likely we don't live in the best possible world.Con objects that there is insufficient justification to claim that it is more likely we don't live in the best possible world. Let's look at the two options.........1) We live in the best possible world2) We don't live in the best possible worldThis is X or Not X, there are only two options here, it's one or the other. As a matter of probability there is only one best possible world and all other possible worlds are not the best. All things being equal as a matter of probability you should expect to live in the non best world.Con calls into question the connection between suffering/well being and non best world, I don't think this is a good reply. Consider If Con was set on fire. Con would be of the view that the harm of his well being by being set on fire is a lesser state than say the improved well being of not being on fire. But if we reject such a paradigm of harm and well being and lesser and better worlds then why help Con in such a situation ? After all maybe it is a better state of Con and the world to be if Con just burns. With that in mind consider what Sam Harris says...""9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five...That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony" [1]"Logically possible we live in the best possible world ? sure, plausible ? no.Moral ParalysisCon disputes the claim that the existence of God logically entails the non existence of unnecessary suffering.Consider the following statement................the all knowing, all powerful, just, loving God allowed an act of suffering to happen which was not necessary to achieve a greater good. The claim is self refuting. As such, if God (as defined) exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist.Recall how In the argument that it only makes sense to stop or attempt to stop suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist. But the existence of unnecessary suffering exists only if God does not.Con makes a vague appeal to free will, but did not develop an argument on those grounds. As such the moral paralysis argument still stands.Cons Kalam Cosmological argumentTimeless causation options/lack of information about timeless thingsRecall my first objection was that we have no idea what does or does not exist in the non physical timeless realm. Con can't solve the ignorance objection by pushing questions unto me and I even warned him of that in the previous round............they did it anyway.Cons own what seems to him is insufficient to overcome the ignorance objection of such matters. As such we can't say with any degree of confidence that those are the only 2 things that exist or possibly exist in such a timeless non physical realm.What determines metaphysical possibility & impossibility ?Absurdity does not justify falsity Recall how I argued that absurdity does not justify falsity when we apply our common sense formed by everyday experiences to the non everyday. (eg what is true of false outside of the universe)Con doesn't dispute that but rather claims that something beginning to exist without a cause is "incoherent". That's obviously false since it is understood. But to give you a taste of something that is incoherent consider..............gibby jabby sloppy fook.Con's claim is baseless, I can just as easily assert that a timeless person unemboided is incoherent. Would Con accept that claim ? of course not.What we observe (or don't) justifies metaphysical claims ?Recall how I argued that if accept our own observations justify metaphysical claims like Con did when they sough to justify the meta claim of that which begins to exist must have a cause we can like wise justify such meta claims like all persons are embodied or the meta claim of persons can only have mental lives of temporal duration.Con claims not too see relevance here, well Con, if all persons are embodied that means you can't have a unembodied personal cause which refutes your personal unembodied cause of the universe. Same with all persons mental lives are temporal ergo no timeless mind.Con can't justify their metaphysics in a CONSISTENT way without refuting their own argument. What isn't an option is for Con just to pick and choose to his own liking which meta claims should be accepted or rejected just to make their argument work and avoid refutation.The universe did not begin to existRecall my argument and formulation of what it means for something to begin to exist as..."X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist"Con agrees there was no "before" the universe.As such the there was no time prior where the universe did not exist and thus did not begin to exist. This refutes the claim that the universe began to exist.Mind & brain/matter connectionRecall the argument here that what we find evidence wise it what we would except to be the case if the mind was dependent on brain/matter.Also recall that this is more likely to be the case if non theism is true since theism is already committed to the existence of at least one mind not dependent on the brain. Con merely claims he can't see the problem here.The argument stands.Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor deniesOnce again God is defined in this debate as having specific attributes...God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal beingTo claim that God exists and chooses not to act in such a way because of indifference is a way to rationalize such a lack of evidence. Never the less the lack of evidence we what we would expect if such a God does not exist.God exists vs God does not exist & occams razorCon ridicules a mis-representation of occams razor. People believe in things all the time yet are not in violation of occams razor. If you have good reason to believe in a more complex (more assumptions) proposition then the razor allows that. But if you don't then the razor comes into play to cut down the more complex competing propositions.Gods inaction can both be explained by it's choosing not to act and it's non existence. Using the razor you know what to do people.Sources[1]