It is improbable that God exists.

First: As per the given resolution, the BOP is on the pro debater to provide absolute proof that God either doesn't exist, or is more unlikely than likely to exist. So if the debate is tied or there is muddled views on how the debate breaks down, vote con since the Pro is failing to clearly meet his BOP. Also, I as the con debater need only sufficiently refute the pro debater's arguments for a few reasons: 1) To negate is defined as to deny the truth of. As the con debater, I am negating the given resolution. So as long as I deny the truth of the resolution, that is sufficient to earn the win. 2) Since the burden of proof is on the pro debater, if he fails to give you sufficient proof that affirms the resolution, then he fails to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on him, which is enough to merit the con with the win. For these reasons, as long as I am winning arguments on the pro side of the debate, I will be winning the round. Second: one of the major crucial flaws in my opponent's case is that he fails to provide a system to measure the percent chance that god exists or doesn't exist. Since he specified to needing to meet under fifty percent chance in order to win the round, this is going to be one of his biggest flaws. Since he fails to provide you with a way to measure what the percent chance that god exists, you then have to weigh his case in either one of two ways: 1: Vote con right off the bat, since it is impossible for him to sufficiently affirm the resolution, given the specific percent number. 2: Or, if you do not agree with the concept of dropping a debater right off the bat, disregard the number and allow whoever is winning on blanket possibility or impossibility the win. Third: Even if the pro debater is winning that it is more likely that god doesn't exist than does that still leaves a possibility that God still does exist. So in order to sufficiently disprove the con position, the pro debater must prove that it is impossible for God to exist. Otherwise, there is still a chance that god does exist, which is enough to merit a con vote. Since my opponent claims that he is not arguing for the falsehood of any particular faith, this is going to put in a double-bind because either a) He isn't arguing to falsify a religion, making the con case impossible to disprove, which at this point you would vote con or b) He is arguing to falsify religion, and must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since his case only functions as a method of casting doubt onto the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, his case would no longer be sufficient to vote pro off of, thus giving the voter another place to vote con. My sole contention is that since it is impossible to confirm or deny the existence of God existing at all, it is possible that God exists. This is true for a few reasons: 1. We cannot physically see God. Physical proof is the ultimate proof because at that point I cannot deny the existence of it. I cannot deny the laptop I am currently typing on exists because it is physically in front of me. I can see it, I can touch it, I can even smell it and hear it. Heck, I could even taste it, if I so desired. It is physically there, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But we cannot experience God in this manner. I can't walk down the street to God's house and knock on the door and see Jesus open the door. It isn't possible. Because we cannot physically see god, it leaves speculation as to his existence. This doesn't disprove that God exists, only makes it possible that God exists. I cannot physically see, touch, hear, smell, or taste stars and planets that are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of light-years away from Earth. But it is possible that they exist. 2. There is no definitive account that God physically exists. Nobody is alive or has recorded evidence as to prove that God exists or definitively does not exist. Since this proof does not exist, we cannot clearly say if God definitively exists or does not exist.