Gods non existence more likely true than false

I thank Con for their response.A perfect world and/or an inherently good world ?According to Con..."Augustine points out the fact that the world is inherently good. In order for all the laws of physics, the laws of nature, and free will to exist, the world we live in must be inherently good."Unfortunately we just don't live in a world where those things just exist. We live in a world full of "evils" Cons words, not mine, where Con says..."Natural Evil: independent of human actions i.e.. disease, earthquakes, storms, etc."Hardly perfect eh ?But what about inherently good ? The history of mankind is the history of one particular species of mammal surviving in a cruel and indifferent world. We could create a very long list of suffering and once again in Cons words various "evils" so I will repeat what Steven Fry recently said when questioned about a hypothetical of meeting "God"..."Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that did not exist. It is simply not acceptable." [1]Neil Tyson points out some things about our world which I think support the negation of Cons claims about living in a perfect and or inherently good world...Earth 1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct[Humans]1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children. [2]If some one was to claim this world is perfect and or inherently good, I don't know what your talking about and I suspect you don't either.First mover/first cause argumentsEven if it was agreed that there is a "prime mover" or an "uncased caused" it would not establish the existence of the GOD I defined as " God - An omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being.As such I counter that even if it is established that a first cause/mover exists that is not enough to justify the claim that it is "necessarily existent" and/or "the standard of goodness and/or "the intelligent designer" of our universe.There is a reason the first mover argument by Aquinas isn't used much anymore that is because it has an internal contradiction. It claims that everything that exists needs something else to "move" it. But ends in the conclusion of something existing that does not need something else for it to move eg, the first mover, prime mover, God, etcThe Ontological ArgumentI love a good ontological argument for the existence of God. You see God is perfect, and if God didn't exist then it wouldn't be perfect, but of course by definition God is perfect, and that which is perfect necessarily exists, ergo God must necessarily exist, ergo God exists..........check and mate atheists !!!Most people get the feeling that something isn't quite right here, but trying to find the fault in such arguments can be tricky.Allow me to try and break it down, first it must be understood there is a gap between "conception/what is imagined" and what is reality.This is simple to demonstrate imagine a unicorn in your room farting rainbows, now just because you can imagine it does that mean it exists ? of course not, pretty much no one will take issue with this.What if I claimed that unicorn is a perfect unicorn thus it must exist cause if it didn't exist it would not be perfect but by definition it is perfect................now does it exist ? of course not.What if I told you about a God who is perfect, but if it didn't exist it wouldn't be perfect now would it ? But God is perfect and thus exists necessarily thus exists. Does this means God exists ? no.Imagine X is perfect ergo it must exist does the fact that you imagine X to be perfect mean in REALITY it exists ? no.It applies to unicorns, it applies to "X", it applies to "God".Pascal WagerPascal's wager doesn't even attempt to justify the belief that God exists in the usual manner of reason/evidence, logical deductive arguments, inference to the best explanation etc etc rather it is presented as a well you can't lose only win if you believe in God ergo you should believe in God.I don't believe this is a good argument because God here isn't defined therefore it gives you contradictory results and if some argument gives you contradictory results we should not regard it as a good argument.Believe in God it says ? well believe what exactly ? A God who does or does not take an interest in human affairs ? A God who wants everyone to read the bible/quran ? A God who wants you to believe that Jesus is the son of God or is not the Son of God ? A God who wants you to use moral reasoning and or your own moral compass or a God who wants various rules obeyed regardless of what you think or fell about them ? A God who wants you to persecute homosexuals or a God who doesn't want homosexuals treated any differently ?The problem I have heard others mention about Pascal is that when he presents the argument to believe in God what he really means is believe in the God HE believes in. He just took that for granted.The free will defenseCon has made some claims about God existing and how it has given free will. Suffice to say I don't accept the bare assertion that God exists and free will how ever understood is given by the God as defined. I would also add that coming up with rationalizations doesn't mean they are true nor likely to be true.I don't really have the time in this round to go into more detail on "free will" but hope to in the later round time and character count permitting.Arguments for the plausibility that God does not existCon makes the point that God and suffering can co-exist, but remember concerning my arguments on suffering and divine silence the argument wasn't that those things where logically incompatible with the existence of God but rather it was more plausible that God as defined did not exist using occams razor.Recall where I said..."Seeing that both hypotheses explain the absence of such a Gods action equally well Occams razor enjoins us to go with the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions ergo we should go with the God does not exist option as it makes fewer assumptions."Con has not disputed the more plausible explantion using occams razor that being that God as defined does NOT exist.Moral ParalysisAlso recall the argument about moral paralysis and how the argument concluded..."It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing suffering which was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.But this can only be the case if God does not exist."Con did not dispute the logical incompatibility of the existence of God and unnecessary suffering nor disputed that by seeking to prevent suffering only makes sense if you operate on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist.I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://www.theguardian.com...[2] www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oEl9kVl6KPc#!