God more than likely does not exist

I thank Con for their reply.You can't prove that God (or the demon in front of your screen) doesn't exist.It should be noted here that my argument here is not lack of proof of X = therefore X certainly does not exist. We could come up with a near infinite amount of propositions that can't be disproven and thus MIGHT (how ever remotely) exist.Rather I argued even though we can't disprove the existence of the demon in front of your screen we can be justified that it is more likely (although not certain) that it does not exist based on the following.......1) No good reason to believe the demon exists there in the first place2) Absence of evidence where we would expect such absence of evidence if the thing did not exist3) The more and more rationalizations (without justification) that are needed to save the demon propositions from being falsified.Likewise the same with God.A general concept of God vs a more specific concept of God (as defined in this debate)Recall how I argued that anyone who wants to claim that God exists and that God is - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being without justification becomes more and more less likely to be the case.Con did not dispute this point.Occams RazorCon did not dispute the reasoning of occams razor nor the argument that Gods inaction is more plausibility explained by it's non existence.Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of needGods silence in both area's is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist.Con merely makes up some arguments of his own making based on unjustness/immorality which are not the arguments I presented. As such the actual arguments remain untouched by Con.Prayer healing has not being shown to work.Con's claims prayer healing is not relevant, well I think it is and so do other people. If it was shown that praying to a God, or in a particular way or under certain conditions was shown to be more effective than praying to another God or more effective than praying to a light bulb then that would be evidence that could be used in support of the existence of God. But it works both ways, It has not being shown that praying to God is anymore effective than praying to a light bulb, it's not as though people lack incentive here or haven't tried. All people can do is used confirmation bias to (falsely) claim prayer healing works.This is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist. God & the best possible world (or not)1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world2) More likely we don't live in the best possible worldC) Therefore more likely God does not existCon raised no objections here.Moral paralysisCon raised no objections here, the argument standsNow unto Cons arguments in support of the existence of GodSt Anselm Ontological argumentExistence is not a predicateCon does not dispute that existence is not a predicate and thus the comparison of a God that exists in mind vs God that exists in mind and the real world is illict but rather just asserts that it's greater to exist than not too.Con is certainly free to believe that it is greater to exist than not too, I personally believe it is greater for one billion dollars to exist in my bank account than to not, yet when I look at my bank account it is not there.You can't justify the existence of something just because you think it is greater for that something to exist than not too.This just adds more support to my argument previously where I stated..."Just because something can be imagined does that mean it ACTUALLY exists ? of course not. But what if we take anything and everything and claim that it is the "greatest conceivable", does this addition now justify that that thing exists ? No.To put it more directly the conception of the greatest conceivable being that exists in both mind and reality is it's self a conception and thus like all conceptions does not necessarily correspond to reality."William Craig's Ontological argumentIt is possible God does not existRecall here my first objection was that starting with the premise it is possible that God does not exist step by step we get the conclusion that God does not actually exist.Con says..."My opponent cannot replace "It is possible that a maximally great being exists" with "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists"Well Con I just did. This is laughable for Con to think they can just with a wave of the hand dismiss a premise that operates on the same reasoning as their own argument to get the opposite conclusion.I mean if you going to just think you can dictate at your own pleasure what premises can or can't be considered then.......1) God exists2) God does not existWell I declare that God does not exist is not allowed, therefore God exists !!!No reasonable person would take such an argument seriously yet that is what Con has tried to do.Exists in all possible worlds vs Does not exist in all possible worldsRecall my previous argument where I argued there is a contradiction....1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Therefore there is a possible world where a maximally great being does not exist)&4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world,(therefore there is no possible world where it does not exist) then it exists in the actual world.Either something exists in all possible worlds or it doesn't, it can't be both, thus 1 & 4 contradict each other thus the argument has an internal contradiction to it.Con just asserts well it's not possible for God to not exist, oh but it is, it really is.There is no logical contradiction in the following premise.....God does not exist.The argument stands.Modal realism has not being justifiedConsider the premise that states..."4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."Recall how I made the argument that a possible world is not necessarily real, Con did not dispute that. Con has made no argument in support of modal realism as such my counter here still stands.Consider where Con says..."So the reason why the possible world is the same as the real world (as used as in the context of this debate) is because reality is possible and within possibility."All actuals are possible but are all possibilities actualized ? well clearly not, there are all sorts of possibilities that are not actual (unless you justify modal realism), once again the possibility of one billion dollars in my bank account.A God that exists in all possible worlds even according to Con is just that a possibility, and like all possibilities is not necessarily ACTUAL.Ontological argument-Mulla Sadra"s logicI find the concept of perfection used in this argument muddled. Most people operate on the understanding that to say something is perfect is that it can not be improved upon and or that any change in something that is perfect would mean it is no longer perfect.But that is not the perfection conception that is used in this argument, rather it takes something and goes looking to make a comparison in the real world and if it does not find something better claims well it's perfect.Well there is no other debater on here called common debater thus common debator is "perfect". Also notice here in the argument that the entire of actual things is claimed perfect and God is perfect so, everything is God and everything is perfect..................confusing.This argument doesn't justify anything about God other than to invoke a unfamiliar conception of "perfect" and apply it to God.I look forward to Cons response.