Atheism is more probable than Theism

You know, this might seem irrelivent, but I just thought I would add something. This is a funny story, but it made me think about God a little bit and his reasoning for why he doesn't reveal himself. I was watching a Futurama episode (the episode is called Godfellas. If you want to watch it, it's on Netflix and it's pretty hilarious.) and in this episode, Bender meets God. God is portrayed as a talking galaxy in the episode. God tries to explain to Bender the difficulty of being God. He explains, "When you do things right, people won't think you've done anything at all." If you show yourself and help people whenever they need it, they become dependent on you. If you neglect the people when they need it, they reject you. This is very true, as it is seen in every government with social programs that people become dependent on, yet when the government does nothing, people become angry. Just food for thought. Ontological Argument For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being. This is a straw man of what the parody is trying to show. This parody isn't trying to prove Hercules is or was a maximally great being. I don't think my opponent completely understands the Ontological Argument, for it can only prove a maximal being, and no other being. I don't really understand what his Hercules argumnent is trying to prove. It really doesn't even dent the Ontological Argument at all. One objection to this parody is that we can conceive of a stronger and stronger warrior to kill the former ad infinitum. But actually, the most maximal being would be one that could not be elminated by anyone. You can't refute that. A maximal being that is the strongest would be the maximal being, eliminating the ad infintium argument. Existence could rarely ever be regarded an attribute, as anything nonexistent are not able to have attributes. There are several versions of the Ontological Argument. The initial proposer of the argument, Anselm, made a second argument after the first which does not rely on existence being a perfection. Here is the argument. 1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. 2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist. 3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. 4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. 6. God exists in the mind as an idea. 7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. This version of the argument relies on two important claims. As before, the argument includes a premise asserting that God is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But this version of the argument, unlike the first, does not rely on the claim that existence is a perfection; instead it relies on the claim thatnecessary existence is a perfection. This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. Otherwise put, then, the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible. Kalam Cosmological Argument Defense The model I was referring to is the "Alexander Vilenkin model". None of Craig's objections apply here. Vilekin's model doesn't claim there was any type of background space (which Craig based his objections off), but that the universe was the result of a quantum tunneling event [1]. Alexander Vilenkin's models are used by many theists to show the necessity of God, including William Lane Craig. The one that is usually used, is one of his newest models. He created a model with two other scientists in 2003 that William Craig mentions in his argument. This purely philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning. He then goes on to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 1. The universe began to exist. 2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause. 3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause. Now from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we’ve seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical. My opponent still has not proved why atheism is more probable than theism. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... http://www.iep.utm.edu...