It is improbable that God exists

A Case For Weak AtheismIt is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as far as new knowledge claims are concerned, however I do not think such evidence is required for belief. Belief and knowledge are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there can be vast differences between the two in particular circumstances. What is an example? Well, if I hand you a random card out of a 52 card deck, it's rational to believe that it is not the King of Diamonds, this is because the odds of you getting that specific card are 1 in 52. However, it would be irrational to claim to know that the card is not a King of Diamonds until you turn it over. Now, when it comes to God, I would claim that one could make a probability claim that he most likely exists and form this belief rationally, without any extraordinary evidence at all. For example, I believe that extraterrestrials exist somewhere in the universe, and I am justified in this belief due to how fast life started on Earth and how many Earth like planets there are. .. Do I have any extraordinary evidence for extraterrestrials? No, but I do not require this because I am not making a knowledge claim, I'm making a belief claim which still requires justification in situations (like in situations involving debating of some sort), but not extraordinary evidence. Since theism and atheism are based around belief specifically, and not knowledge specifically, one is justified in belief in God (or belief that he doesn't exist) without any extraordinary evidence. SyllogismNow, I have a major problem with this:"1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. "It is not rational to believe an extraordinary claim is false, simply because there is a lack of evidence for said claim. It may be rational to not accept that the claim is true, however there is a huge difference between simply not accepting a claim is true, and accepting that the claim is false. One needs further justification for that. Based on the above, I believe that I have shown how my opponent's case for weak atheism, was rather weak in itself. A Case For Strong AtheismMy opponent's justification for strong Atheism is the "incompatible properties" argument. Why does this line of thinking fail? Well, if there are two properties that contradict each other, one could easily remove one of the two properties with regards to the said definition of God, redefine God in a more coherent manner, and we are back to square one. .. .Incompatible properties don't necessarily eliminate God, they just require that one of the two contradictory properties needs to go. Now, my opponent may argue that the Judeo-Christian God is defined as having these properties, so any other God without these properties, would be a different God and not the God we are debating about (The Christian God more or less). This would seem like a strong rebuttal on it's surface, however who is to say that humans got their definition of the Judeo-Christian God correct? The Judeo-Christian God Jews and Christians claim to have experiences with, could still exist even if humans failed and defining him and giving him coherent properties due to humans being flawed beings. Thus, my opponent's case for strong atheism fails as well. It Is Probable That The Judeo-Christian God ExistsThe criteria set by my opponent, states that I must not only refute his claims that God is improbable, but present my own arguments for God being probable. I will present two arguments to defend this notion: The Teleological Argument, and The Argument From The Resurrection Of Jesus. The Teleological ArgumentThis is more or less the fine-tuning argument, however I will be the ditching the syllogism format. Now, The combination of physical constants that we see in our universe is the only one able of sustaining life as we know it. The rate of the expansion of energy/matter that followed The Big Bang needed to happen at exactly the correct rate. If it had expanded any faster, matter would have dissipated too fast for solar systems and stars to form. If this expansion happened any slower, the universe would have collapsed in on itself in a Big Crunch. Also, scientists calculated that changes in the nuclear strong force of as little as ±1% would have dramatically affected the breakdown of the known elements in the universe, and life we know it would be absolutely impossible [1]. This seems much easier explained by the fact that a designer chose the universe to be this way, instead of everything we see around us arising by simple chance. Since we are talking about probability here, what are the odds that the universe we have right now would exist if an all powerful God willed it to? I would say 1 in 1. However, what are the the odds that the universe we have right now would exist if it was simply due to random forces acting and chance? The odds are so low I don't even want to think about it, clearly God existing is more probable given this than the alternative. The Argument From The Resurrection Of JesusMost New Testament scholars seem to agree in large sums that the resurrection of Jesus is no joke. Now, if Atheists can accept claims from physicists when it comes to matters of physics due to large agreement amongst the experts in the field (lets face it, we don't truly understand the intricacies regarding the physics information we intake), why can't theists accept claims from Biblical scholars with it comes to matters of religion due to large agreement amongst experts in the field? Also, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, and heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings, or it is the most remarkable fact of history. It seems like the burden of proof would rest on the one claiming the conspiracy (like how the burden of proof is on 911 Truther conspiracy theorists to show why 911 was an inside job), instead of the one simply adhering to known and accepted historic accounts. Since God clearly is the most likely candidate with regards to raising Jesus from the dead (Jesus himself, is God), then belief in the Judeo-Christian God seems to more rational than the alternative. ConclusionMy opponent failed to present good arguments in favor of weak atheism and strong atheism. I met my burden by providing a better case for why God is probable by using the fine-tuning argument, and made sure my argument entailed the Judeo-Christian God by arguing in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the resolution seems to have been negated early, maybe my opponent will prove me wrong. Source(s) [1] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...PS. My apologies for the lack of sources, I mostly just used arguments that came from my mind for this one.