It's probable that the God exists

Big Bang TheoryPro ignores my explanation and baldly reasserts that the existence of God is 50/50 merely because there are two propositions. This is false because, as I previously explained, there is no data available to analyze to determine any probability. Just because there are two forwarded propositions doesn't mean that they automatically have equal probability of being true, especially when it isn't even known if the existence of a God is possible.For example, a numbered die in which the only perceived results are odd and even. To assume a 50/50 probability would be to assume that there is an even distribution of odd and even numbers on the die, but in reality, the die could be numbered with all odd numbers, or perhaps with only one even number. Without some information about the die, it is unreasonable to accept any probabilities about an even or odd result.Time and EventsPro doesn't seem to understand that I have issued no claims regarding the origin of the universe except that no solid conclusions can be drawn, as previously explained. As such, Pro's two points are irrelevant because the antecedent is not fulfilled ("If Con claims time did not exist...").Infinite RegressPro claims, "God created time, thus not ruled by it", of which the second part is oddly worded. I don't know who is claiming that God would be "ruled" by time. In any case, "created" describes an action that necessitates change which, in turn, necessitates time. This means that the notion of the creation of time is incoherent, because time would be needed to create time. Pro has not provided any reason as to why God is not subject to the same infinite regress that he claims is a problem for an atheistic universe.Following this, Pro says, "But Con has the dilemma here. Why? Because Con's answer is void of anyone who created our reality, thus Con must demonstrate an answer for every cause...", which is untrue. Pro is pressing for an explanation from me and that I cannot accommodate, but to rely on my lack of explanation to reinforce his own explanation is to commit the Argument from Ignorance and the Shifting the Burden of Proof logical fallacies: Pro is essentially saying, "you can't prove my claim wrong, therefore it is true" [*]. As I have repeatedly explained, the issues that Pro demands answers for are not observable and are therefore subject to nothing more than conjecture.FERMI ParadoxPro states that I cannot deny that a creator is possible. While I cannot say that the existence of God is impossible, I cannot say that it's possible, either. I will agree that it's conceivably possible, but that doesn't mean it's actually possible. Since this debate is in regard to the probability of God's existence, it's unreasonable to consider it probable when it cannot even be determined to be possible.Pro follows with, "what [the paradox] does show is that the manifestation of life is improbable perhaps speculatively, even impossible, if your model is without a creator", which is a Non Sequitur [*]. The FERMI Paradox is intended to juxtapose the (conjectured) high estimated probability of intelligent life verses the lack of observation of it existing in the universe. Since many explanations are given, including the sheer vastness of the universe, it doesn't follow that a creator is required at all. In any case, Pro's statement includes "improbable" which implies possible: that's sufficient enough.Ontological ArgumentPro responds to my explanation that an event that has a 0% of occurring will never occur with two statements. Firstly, human life is nowhere near comparable to God. Secondly, if God is dependent on evolution in order to come into existence, then God cannot be the creator of the universe since evolution entails events that occur within the universe. Therefore, Pro has not explained how it can be determined that the existence of God is even possible."Nuttin Done It"Pro presents another appeal towards the possibility of God's existence with another hypothetical scenario which is dependent on the mechanisms of an already existing universe. If God had arisen through technological means, then God is again dependent on the universe which means that God is not the creator of the universe, as defined. Pro then goes on to attempt to justify the previously submitted car analogy with a series of questions, which I will address:Q) "And why is it illogical to assume the car did not evolve seeing it is a million times less complex than a human being?"A) Simply because cars are not biological organisms and do not reproduce. The inheritance of genetics is crucial to evolution.Q) "What if we found it on another planet? Could we still assume it was created if we found no intelligent life on that planet, or is darwinian means a sound argument?"A) Then we would probably assume it to be the work of some intelligent being because (a) we know that we build such things and (b) there is no conceivable or known way that a car could come into existence by natural means.MoralityPro introduces a new argument which appeals to the common sense of morality that humans possess. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of issues (taking into account the context) are in dispute to some level. A common sense of morality is the result of human development as social beings; evolutionary accounts of the origins of our capacity to be guided by moral judgments do not require any appeal to the comprehension of moral truths by our hominin ancestors, or even to the existence of such truths. Such stories require only claims about natural selection pressures having favored the development of such a capacity and tendency because of the positive effects such traits had on biological fitness [1]. Thus, the existence of human morality does not necessitate God.Laws of InfinityPro continues with appeals to "infinite reality" implying the existence of God, which is reiterated in the form of a new argument. The same problems are retained:1) The existence of God has not been shown to be even possible, and an impossible event cannot occur even with infinite chances. Simply because we can conceive of the concept of God doesn't make it possible. To illustrate, it is conceivably possible for a chatty being to exist that could instantly and telepathically communicate with all intelligent life in the universe, so it must be the case, right? And in utilizing Pro's line of reasoning, there must exist infinite of these beings, as well. Well, I don't sense any telepathic messages, so then this is evidently not possible even with the notion on infinity.2) Pro posits that over the course of infinite time, a God would have necessarily emerged through some processes. However, since these processes exist within the universe, if God is a derivative of those processes, He cannot therefore be the creator of the universe. This includes both the concepts of technological advancement and evolution.3) Pro's argument contains completely incoherent statements regarding time, "Even if one says time did not exist at times in history...", and posits that I have some model that involves "stopping time", which is false. Pro claims that time is meaningless to its creator (which is incoherent as previously explained) and the only justification that Pro presents is in the form of an analogy to the Sims game. Pro has not supplied anything more than speculation and conjecture to support this.ConclusionPro has dropped all contentions to my Argument from Human Nature. Pro has offered an array of speculative arguments with little or no reasoned or evidenced support. I would like to reiterate that Pro possessed the Burden of Proof in this debate. Thank you Pro, for an interesting and well-mannered debate!Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[*] Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...