It is probable that God does not exist

Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments"To the atheist premise1 I would say. Physical constants can indeed support life but they are not the "necessary," I say that because life is not always present in these life sustaining constants."' My argument had nothing to do with how much of the universe we live in contains life, my argument was based on how this particular combination of physical constants allows for life in the first place, and how they are necessary for life because no other constants could sustain life (if the theist excepts the fine-tuning argument, they must accept this premise)."Which would bring us to premise2 where I would agree that physical constants are contingent to GODS design." It's seems my opponent has conceded my point, if theism is true then the constants are completely contingent to God's design. "Which brings me to premise 3. That physical constants can and are completely contingent to GODS plan because it is quite possible he "designed" them to work independent of himself. The burden of proving he didn't or can't would be yours." I met my burden of proof. The constants in our universe cannot both be necessary to sustain life and be a life sustaining set of constants completely contingent to God's design (this is a clear contradiction, either the constants are necessary or contingent). "Now to the perfectionist argument I would simply ask "what's more perfect? an unlimited power source or a limited one. Or from another stand point perfection has to be measured by something or someone. They decide what that perfection is. Who can GOD be measured against if he is indeed the highest being? Therefore he has all the right to call himself and whatever else he deems perfect, for he is doing the measuring."This means that my opponent concedes that applying the attributes such as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolence to God is not a good idea. This would be because God wouldn't have to meet any standard met by a mere human (this actually makes sense). However, this would also undermine the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, which applies attributes such as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolence to God. If my opponent is ok with this, then that is fine by me. "Your example was talking about "perfection" by design, and from that standpoint correct, but who is the designer of GOD? What if he is designed to be unlimited? Wouldn't that make him perfect by design? Or how can perfection be reached if our world is the result of a chance happening. What other event could we measure it by to call it or anything in it perfect." I'm not sure if this has any impact to my argument, so I am going to make a bold move and disregard it. "Seeing how all of mankind thruout the ages have chased after some form of perfection, its hard for me, where and yourself included not to believe perfection exist. Where there is a any comparison, perfection must exist. You need something to compare it too." Well this is actually a fallacy. I could chase some magic power which could make me a Super Saiyan, this doesn't mean a Super Saiyan actually exists because I could imagine what it would be like, and I want to be a Super Saiyan badly. So even though humans strive to be perfect, this doesn't mean that perfection therefore exists. Conclusion My opponent only addressed one or two out of my five arguments, and I refuted all of his objections with ease.