Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

Before I get into my response, I'd like to point out that the opponent has said that he may not have internet connection this weekend. If he cannot get his response out in time and has to forfeit one round, that shall not be a loss for him. Instead, he can post in the following round. I'm making this decision based upon the content he offered in return and the number of rounds this debate is set to have. Next, I'd like to thank the opponent for giving some back story regarding his belief. It always makes debates more interesting when a debater humanises his position. Hopefully sites like this and opponents like myself will either make you reconsider what your faith means to your or make you grow stronger in your faith. Whichever the case, it never hurts to become more educated about arguments for and against your cause. I'll now move into the content of my opponent's argument. The Sheer Number of Possible GodsLet's start out by quoting something the opponent said: "...it is like a plate of cookies on the other side of the wall and you stating how many cookies are on the plate when you are not for certain". Here, he actually supports my arguments regardining the infinitude of possible gods. Imagine we are on the other side of this wall and we are trying to determine how many cookies are on some given plate. If we assume the room behind the wall is of infinite size, then the number of cookies can range from zero to infinity. From a general probabilistic perspective, the set of possible cookies is C = {0, 1, 2, ... }, tending towards infinity. This is exactly what my first point is saying. If we assume we have no information regarding the probability of some god existing, then our set of possible gods is clearly infinite. This is how I made the conclusion that, without additional information, the probability that one specific god exists (the Christian God) amongst all the options is virtually zero. Looking at Physical Evidence to Change Probabilistic WeightsLet's again look at this cookie scenario. Generally, the set of possible cookies is infinite, however we can use physical evidence to change the probability of each specific element occuring. So in this town with the wall, we might have a single bakery and a single Walmart and no other stores. Given this, we know that the amount of flour in said town is limited. Additionally, perhaps we know that this wall is relatively new and that no new shipments have come into town. We can then know that the number of cookies cannot be too large, as the limit in flour directly constrains cookie output. With this new information in hand, we can take our infinite cookie possibilities, C, and recalculate the probabilistic weights. Now, we know that a large amount of cookies (say, over 100,000) is highly unlikely, which means every amount of cookies under 100,000 just became much more likely. This is essentially what I have done in "Changing Weights" argument. I've looked at the physical evidence for a particular god, the Christian God, then used the results of this to conclude that the probability of this god is actually quite low. I did this in a few ways and my opponent responded to these, mostly. I will cover them right after a brief point regarding the burden of proof. Burden of ProofAs I stated in the first round, burden of proof is shared in this debate. This means both sides try to prove that the claim, "[It] is probable that the Christian God does not exist," to be true or false, and the side that most reasonable shows their arguments to be superior wins. Now the opponent has brought of the Bible by stating that I must disprove it in order in order to disprove that there is only one possible god. Two problems with this:First, the opponent is making the objective claim that the Bible is real. Whereas I started with a probabilistic argument deeply rooted in math, the opponent is making an objective claim. It is, therefore, his burden of proof to show that the Bible is indeed accurate. It would be no different if I claimed that God cannot exist because unicorns created the universe. Without some degree of proof that unicorns a) exist and b) did that, my argument would hold no water and it would not be my opponent's obligation to disprove my statement. It would be considered false in the first place, until given credence. Next, my argument actually demonstrates that the likelihood of the Christian God is low in the first place, meaning that the Bible probably isn't true in the first place either. With each argument that reduces the likelihood of God, I also reduce the veracity of the Bible, further weakening my opponent's position. Now, let's talk about the physical evidence I mentioned earlier. Creation of the WorldMy opponent's response to this point essentially says that an omnipotent being would have the power to create our world. I do now deny that. However, I looked at Biblical Creation in the way the Bible claims it happened and showed that it contradicts our understanding of how worlds actually form. The fact that physics shows that the world was not created in the particular way the Bible said brings the veracity of the Bible into question, as well as the God of the Bible. Creation of ManFor the sake of not turning this into an "Evolution" argument, I won't get yipper-skipper about proving this just yet. Instead, I'll point out that the academic and scientific community largely supports the theory of evolution. While this doesn't make it true, it does show that the opponent will need some evidence that evolutionary theory is flawed. While the book he mentions interests me, it is not evidence until he can actually quote arguments from the book. Simply mentioning a book does not qualify as evidence, in this debate setting. So yea, opponent: Find me some evidence questioning evolution and we can have a more specific discussion about it. The Great Flood The opponent asserts that there is a great amount of evidence that the Flood occurred, but suggested we save that discussion for another time. While we can do that, that would mean this argument flows to me, greatly weakening the opponent's argument. I presented evidence in my speech briefly explaining why a great flood did not occur and my opponent must adequately address this. As for my opponent's next claim regarding dinosaurs, giants and sharks, I'm going to just ignore that bit. He has no evidence for those claims and the entire scenario he's proposing seems... like something that needs evidence. My Opponent's ArgumentRecalling that both sides have a burden of proof here, it is necessary that my opponent make an argument as well. Currently, his argument seems to boil down to "The Bible", a subject I have already discussed. (Opponent needs some degree of proof.) I suggest that the opponent attempt to develop an argument for your position; don't just respond to my arguments. If you do that, if I win even a single point in my argument the debate will go to me, simply because you never presented a solid argument on your own position. I look forward to the next round! Again, if the opponent doesn't manage to respond, that's ok. His internet is being shoddy and he lives in Manitoba, Canada.