God more than likely does not exist

I thank Con for their reply.Cosmological argumentRecall Cons first premise here that states..."P1: All physical entities have contingent existence"Recall how Con sought to justify this absolute premise from an extrapolation of the 18 particles and their contingency and thus claimed everything physical is contingent.Consider where Con claims..."The only way that this premise could be refuted by the existence of dark matter is if dark matter is not shown to be contingent."Let's be clear, it's Cons premise, he/she had the burden to justify it.Con in light of his 18 particles argument falling apart when confronted with the existence of dark matter and the unknown of what it is made up from and thus can't claim with confidence that everything in the universe is made up of those 18 particles. As such Con changes track and now claims "norm" of the universe and occams razor to justify this absolute premise. This is back peddling by Con and once again a huge overreach to justify an absolute without exception premise.Con stills denies the fallacy of composition. Remember my objection here is that Con commits this is an INDIRECT way. Consider Cons logic here as stated by them with my further details...P1: All physical entities are contingent (based on and only on what is true of the "parts" of the universe)P2: The universe (as a whole) is a physical entityC: The universe (as a whole) is contingent Con states the premise 1) but wants you to forget exactly how he got that premise in the first place. The universe (as a whole) did not begin to exist, need not have a cause/be contingentCon need not defend Kalam, but they do have to defend against the counter argument that applies to their cosmoloigcal argument. Con failed to do so.Recall how argued and formulated what it means for something to begin to exist as......"X beings to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist"Also recall that I made the point that absent the universe there is no time and thus no "before" when the universe did not exist and thus the universe did not begin to exist.Also recall where I said..."Con uses scientific evidence which is under pinned by a scientific conception of causation (eg particle physics) to justify their argument. But the scientific conception of causality can't be applied outside of space and time ."Con did not dispute any of those points.As such the universe as a whole not needing a cause that is to say it is not contingent. This directly refutes Cons premise that the universe is a contingent entity and thus refutes their cosmological argument which relied on that premise.Ontological ArgumentDefinition GCB = Greatest Conceivable BeingIn reference to the counter argument I bought up made by Thomas Aquinas Con responds..."Finally, Pro disputes the premise that we can conceive of God. Yet this is quite an odd sentiment, as the very fact that we are debating God surely entails that we can conceive of him?" & "Note that this does not presuppose a complete idea of the very essence of God, all that is required is some notion or idea of God."I submit such an admission from Con breaks their own argument here. Remember Cons argument was all about going from the GCB that exists in mind as being the one and the same as the one that exists in reality. A non physical thing has no physical properties to "transcend" in the first place. This applies to God, the non physical unicorn and any other miscellaneous non-physical things. As such this is not a refutation of such a unicorn and as such the argument is still shown absurd.Notice how Con just asserts what can or can't be non physical. And this is the problem with this kind of defense of this particular ontological argument. Quite simply the game is rigged.....in the GCB favor of course. No matter what counter example you bring to show the absurdity of the argument, eg greatest conceivable unicorn a new rule that exempts GCB can always be made. You can play this game forever, as such this is another reason to reject this particular ontological argument by Con and how Con has defended it in light of Reductio ad absurdum [1] bought against it.With all that said my number one objection (but not the only one) from the start has being and still is..."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.""God exists vs God does not existRecall the argument here that in light of Gods inaction that occams razor enjoins us to go with the least amount of assumptions, that being God does not exist.There is no disagreement between Con and myself here concerning the application of occams razor in principle. It just that Con claims their arguments justify the existence of God as a prior, I claim in light of my objections and counters they do not.Divine SilenceConsider where Con claims..."Without any prior evidence for or against God's existence, instances of infant mortality would inductively lead us to conclude that the latter is the case. However, we have got prior evidence for God's existence "Works for me, well the first bit. I just don't think you have being able to show a good argument for the existence of God in light of my objections and counters.Moral ParalysisI don't think Cons reply works here. I will explain in more detail under the heading God could create a world with free will and no moral evil.Free will defenseCon claims that free will is both the desire and the ability to actualize that desire. That's fine, I can work with that, cause my argument is still the same.You have to believe that God (among other things) has given free will to the child rapist (to actualize child rape) but not given free will to the child not to be raped (cause they can't actualize it)My argument still the same here, logically possible ? sure, plausible.........nah.It is possible for God to create a world with free will & no moral evilConsider Cons counter here..."Pro continues this argument, but gives no reason how it could possibly work"Short answer, cause it has not being shown to be impossible ergo it is possible. I would also note that Con is in no position to try and argue against this possibility that just because something has not being shown to work it should be rejected as a possibility, not only would that be an argument from ignorance it would be a double standard by Con since their arguments depend on a whole list of certain possibilities which are never shown how to work. (God gives free will, God is the cause/contingency of the universe as a whole, God exists as a non physical person, etc etc)Cons questions..."The fault in this argument is this: for what reason would everyone choose to not commit evil?"Because they choose not too, you know with that alleged God given free will. This also refutes Cons objection that actual child rape is necessary to achieve the greater good of God given free will in reply to the moral paralysis argument. As such the moral paralysis argument still stands.As such the fact we don't live in such a world absent moral evil (cons words not mine) is more likely cause God (as defined) does not exist.Closing remarks.I thank Philocat for participating in this debate and hope if anything the reader is more enlightened and has considered things that they had not thought about before or perhaps in a different way.I ask to consider the vote going to Pro.I would remind Con as agreed, there are to be no new arguments in the final round presented.Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...