It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

I am very excited to be able to debate stubs on this topic! I thank the scientists and engineers (and whoever else was involved in the development of our modern technology) for making the computers and the Internet that we can use to debate. I am going to show how Pro’s argument doesn’t explain how it is more probable that there is a god. I am going to copy Pro’s argument directly below this to be used as a reference for my rebuttal. 1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world. 3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world. 4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world. 5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world 6: Therefore, God exists 7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 1) It is also possible that a magic banana that flies around our universe exists too. Anything is possible. 2) Yes, but a possible world is nothing more than an idea. Therefore, it is irrelevant to reality. 3) Not necessarily. You have no way to really know what god is, if it existed, so you have no way of knowing if he can be in another possible world other than your man-made idea of god. A possible world, like I pointed out, is just an idea. So far your argument has nothing to do with reality. 4) No, this is a huge flaw. Because your idea of god exists in a fake “possible world” doesn’t mean that he is in our real world. Pro even says, “Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true.” 5) This is basically a restatement of your 4th point. I will again state that what is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality. Even if god may have existed in a possible world, that doesn’t make it any more probable that it would be in our reality. 6) Pro is continuing to repeat the same idea. A god cannot exist just because he could have existed in an idea. 7) Again, same idea as his 4th, 5th, and 6th point. Later in Pro’s argument, he talks about how if a god is possible, it must exist because he is a “maximally great” being. How do you know this? No god has ever been observed so how can you know all of this information about it? I could say that my magic banana is maximally great, and then if it’s possible, he exists! That is ridiculous logic. You cannot make up what something you don’t know to have an advantage. There is another flaw in Pro’s possible world argument. If a god existing in a possible world means that it’s in our real world, then that means that every idea of a god or of gods is true. That would be pretty contradictory to many ideas of god. Pro stated that I (an atheist) have to maintain some ideas. The first one is that I have to maintain that it is impossible for a god to exist. No, I do not because it is possible for anything to exist. The argument is about probability. His second idea for the atheist to maintain is that the idea of god isn’t possible in a possible world. Two things about this, I don’t have to prove that a god doesn’t exist and possible worlds are irrelevant. It is possible for anything to exist in any possible world. Pro continues on using an example, a married bachelor, for how I have to prove that a god is impossible. I don’t have to prove that a god is impossible, the debate is about probability. Pro claims that he’s not changing the burden of proof even though that’s what he’s doing. Pro doesn’t have to prove that a god is real (something Pro couldn’t do) so I don’t have to prove that a god is impossible. The debate is about probability of a god’s existence. == My argument == As Con, my position is that the existence of a god, specifically the Christian god, isn’t highly probable. I have 3 points to explain why the existence of god is improbable. 1) An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that there is a magic, all-knowing being without any evidence is ridiculous. The chances of this god being real are incredibly low and there hasn’t been any proof to back up the potential existence of that god. If a god really wanted all people to follow him, wouldn’t he prove his existence? According to Pro, he could if he wanted to. 2) No god has ever been observed. There has never been any legitimate proof of a god or anything supernatural. Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence. Religion has been around for thousands of years without evidence. We don’t need a god concept to be here. 3) Religion is a man-made concept. Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people’s need to know the unknown. This makes a god’s case very weak, not only is there no proof for a god, but the idea of god was created by man. This shows that the probability of a god existing, are incredibly slim. [1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...