It is probable that God does not exist

Rebutting My OpponentModal Argument Against A Maximally Great Being "According to your standpoint, any god that exist in any world must exist in all worlds." Yes, however there is a huge difference between epistemic possibility, and subjective possibility. With epistemic possibility, if someone says x is possible, it could also be true that it's impossible, we just wouldn't know. When dealing with subjunctive possibility on the other hand, if one is making the truth claim that x is possible, they are also making the truth claim that x is not impossible. The theist cannot demonstrate that God's existence is not impossible so their is no reason to assume his possibility in that context as true (thus, God's possibility is not a default position). "For any theist to even agree to this he must concede that his faith is meaningless. All theist share the common belief that GOD exist outside the concept of "world" because he created the "world". To even think that he exist in the world and not the world in him is something no theist would do."Well, it seems my opponent doesn't understand modal logic and rejects the basic underlining of the modal ontological argument for the existence of God. Either way my argument has not been refuted, but I will try to explain the idea of a possible world. A possible world in this context means a possible reality where there are no logical contradictions. Regardless, I will try not to debate in that context. Argument Against A Cause Of The UniverseMy opponent had nothing to say regarding my argument in this area. God Could Not Be The Source Of Objective Morality"Even according to your argument, that some outside force governs what's good and what's not, then wouldn't this outside force ultimately be greater than GOD. According to your logic, GOD himself can be measured by these rules. Therefore making him subject to some higher being right?"I never implied a higher being, because that would imply that a higher being is necessary for morality. I'm saying that if God's nature is the way it it because it's good, then this means there is an independent source or standard of good. If you say God's nature is good because it's in his nature and whatever his nature is is good, then he could be a murderer or rapist it would be good, because it's in God's nature to be good, and whatever God's nature is, is good necessarily. Even theistic philosopher Richard Swineburne (a Christian who has written many books arguing for God's existence) has argued that if objective moral truths exist, they are necessary truths, and exist in all possible worlds, even in those where God doesn't exist (sorry about the modal logic, but it's an interesting point that I wanted to share). [1]Basically, to claim that objective moral truths can be grounded in God leads to a clear dilemma. "But if GOD doesn't exist than who are these rules meant to govern? Rules come from a higher intelligence. To even have a rule of good and evil, you must have someone who can rightly judge between the two. Rules don't establish themselves."Well society and law (collective human thought) is what produces these rules. Of course there are differences between the two, as far as society is concerned it's an offense to sleep with another woman if you are married, but it's not against the law. With regarding the law it's an offense to to carry marijuana on your person, but many people in society wouldn't view this as morally corrupt. We all have to live on this planet together, and most of us have sympathy and empathy, and we must co-operate. Logically, raping and killing people is not the best way to maximize our situation. "Your whole argument is based on the rules of modal logic. But theist beliefs are based on GOD'S rules."My opponent says they are based on God's rules, without any warrant or merit I'm afraid. "One can conclude that this debate is unarguable based on the concept of "rules" alone. Had you established that you wanted a "modal" standpoint, I would have established I wanted a biblical standpoint and that my standpoint would not be within the "rules" of this debate. I would have "necessarily" concluded this is "possibly" not something I would choose to debate in this world(or any possible one) under the "rules" which you set forth. With that said I welcome any rebuttal outside the realm of this "modal logic" The rest of my arguments will not be put forward using modal logic.Continuing My CaseFine-Tuning Argument For Atheism P1: The combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life is necessary to sustain life, because other conceivable combinations of physical constants could not sustain life. P2: If theism is true, then the combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life, is completely contingent to God’s design. P3: The combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life it is necessary to sustain life, and thus could not be completely contingent to God's design. C: Theism is not trueDefense of P1 The theist could deny P1, but the first premise of the fine-tuning argument for theism is "the combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it". This means, these particular physical constants are necessary to sustain life, and no other constants could. Defense of P2The theist could deny P2, but then they would have to sacrifice the property given to God known as omnipotence (there is no contradiction in an omnipotent God sustaining life in a vacuum if he wished). Defense of P3 This logically follows from P1 and P2. Defense of the Conclusion The conclusion logically follows from P1 to P3. So, It seems that the constants couldn't have been completely contingent to God. This gives us reason to believe, that the universe was not created by God. Argument From Perfection P1: If God exists he is a maximally great being. P2: It is greater to be perfect than not to be perfect. P3: If a maximally great being exists he is perfect. P4: If a perfect being exists he is complete and unlimited P5: An entity cannot be both complete and unlimited P6: A perfect being cannot exist P7: A maximally great being cannot exist C: God cannot exist Defense of P1If you could imagine a greater being, then that being would be God. So it seems that if God exists, he is a maximally great being. Defense of P2 I believe, this is self-evident (if it needs defending, I'm sure my opponent will let me know). Defense of P3 This follows from P1 and P2. If a maximally great being exists, he is perfect. Defense of P4 Perfection is a maximum, a complete set of perfection. If someone asks you to create the most round 3D object imaginable, and someone creates a sphere, that sphere is perfectly round because you cannot make it more round, it's reached it's limit, it is absolutely perfect because if it could be more round, then it wasn't perfect. However, it is greater to be unlimited than limited, thus it's possible for a maximally great being to not have limits and can keep improving upon his greatness. Defense of P5 An entity with contradictory properties cannot exist. If something is complete then no improvement is logically possible, but if something is unlimited, then improvement is logically possible. This is contradictory. Defense of P6 Since a perfect being must be complete and unlimited, and an entity cannot be both complete and unlimited, a perfect being cannot exist. Defense of P7 Since a being must be perfect to be maximally great, and a perfect being cannot exist, then a maximally great being cannot exist. Defense of the Conclusion God must be maximally great, and a maximally great being cannot exist, thus God cannot and does not exist. Conclusion My opponent didn't refute any of my arguments, or present any of his own. So until shown otherwise, I think it's safe to say I have the upper hand here.Sources[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...