God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Thanks Pro.Burden of ProofI object to Pro's assertion that the BoP is not shared on this debate. Pro must and should hold at least part of the BoP. My reasons for this are because:-Pro is on the affirmative side, meaning he should have an obligation to prove the side they are affirming.-The instigator is making the first claim, and I am simply challenging that claim through process of negation.-Pro is trying to prove a negative, which is harder to affirm than a positive.-The BoP was not specified in the first round. I was the first one to specify the BoP, so my rule should be considered over Pro's-My opponent has already made a case for their position, as if they already have some share of the BoP.Shifting the BoP onto the Con side is logically fallacious[1] as well as unfair. There is no reason for Con to have the entire BoP, and I hope the readers note that also. I would've mentioned this in the last round but since rebuttals weren't allowed I hadn't read what my opponent had said.Evidence of GodPro's first line of reasoning is that God likely does not because there is no evidence for him. I've already provided evidence in the last round so this thinking doesn't really apply to my side. It also doesn't affirm the resolution. Arguing X is true because there is no proof that X is false is fallacious thinking [2] (with X being God's nonexistence). I agree that it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of God through reasoning, which is why the resolution is about the likely nonexistence of God. Pro still needs to show the unlikelihood of God's existence in his arguments.Ancient gods are irrelevant since they don't affirm or negate the resolution. What needs to be shown is that a transcendent being as described in the definitions provided exists, and the presence of other gods doesn't affect that.My opponent states, "Everything God used to be explained for can be now explained by natural processes". This is false because (1) arguments for God's existence aren't all necessarily related to science and (2) there are many natural processes that haven't been explained yet such as abiogenesis. However, I'm not arguing this at all, and none of my contentions relate to science (with the exception of the beginning of the universe).Nature of GodI don't see how this next line of reasoning that was brought up is relevant to the topic. Religious pluralism could very well be true, and there doesn't necessarily need to be a "correct version of Christianity". I only need to argue for a deity as described in the definitions. Since the definition of this deity is an "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent being.", this could apply to many major religions. I did say that I would defend the Christian deity since it fits the definition and I was requested by Pro to do so. Pro, however, still needs to show how the presence of several religions and sects negates the existence of God. If he doesn't, then this contention is irrelevant.This point is concluded with the line, "God most likely does not exist because of the [thousands] of times we have been wrong before on god and the sheer amount of [gods] that are involved" How exactly do the ideas of multiple gods negate the existence of a single transcendent being? And how does human fallibility affirm the resolution also? I could just use this argument to say that atheism is probably untrue because humans are fallible, and it would make an equal amount of sense.Omnipotence Paradox1) This argument doesn't work because it assumes that an omnipotent being would have to be bound by logic. If such a god is omnipotent, then he would have the ability to create logic and not be bound by it. There is no reason to assume that logic would exist prior to the deity because such a deity would also not need to be bound by space or time, which is the God Christians believe in. In fact, there is no reason to assume God is limited by anything, as he is omnipotent and has no need to be restricted by anything that is outside the supernatural realm such as logic, mathematics, or physics.2) Even if God is bound by logic, the paradox wouldn't work. In the rock scenario he would be able to limit his power (and stop being omnipotent) in order to have the rock be too heavy for him. If he wouldn't be able to limit his power, he wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Such a deity would have every conceivable ability including the ability to restrict himself, causing such a scenario to be able to exist after all.Problem of EvilThe contention presented is that if an omnibenevolent being exists then suffering also should not exist. There are two kinds of suffering, man-made and natural. Below I will provide my reasoning:Moral evilThe choices made by people, both good and evil, are an exercise of free will. For God to eliminate moral evil would be to take away free will, which I contend is a moral evil in itself. By restricting agency and taking away all bad that could happen, people would not be able to choose for themselves between good and evil, thus a lack of freedom to choose. Free will is a moral good, of which I am sure my opponent agrees.Pro does seem to have an objection to this already: "if God is all knowing and knows what's going to happen ahead of time then how do we have free will??" I'm not sure how omniscience negates agency. If God knows everything then he knows what are going to choose, and allows us to choose it anyway. This doesn't disprove a god at all, and I do not see how it does.Natural evil1) What we presuppose good and evil to be is entirely subjective. This ties back to my moral standard argument: If God does not exist, then the only basis in which we can object to natural suffering is our subjective feelings. What I don't like isn't evidence for God not existing. God only does not exist if he subscribes to my personal view of what morality is - what I believe good and evil to be. However, there is no reason for us to think that. In the setting in which God exists and is a transcendent being, his standard would be above that of human morality and what we perceive to be right and wrong when our level of understanding is far beneath that of God's.2) In the Christian view of life, mortal death is not the end of one's existence. An omnibenevolent God does not have to set things right immediately to be all-good, and there's no reason to think such. If an afterlife exists, then we can be assured that all evil that was done will be set right in the future, and that those who suffered and did good will be changed, with justice set right. If Pro asserts that God does not exist based on what occurs in earthly life alone, then the whole picture is not being taken into consideration. As stated before, God must be outside time and thus not bound to control what happens in our physical life alone.HellThis point is irrelevant. Pro needs to prove that (1) hell exists if God does, (2) God sends people there if they don't believe in him, and (3) torture happens to people there. These are all bare assertions made about theism and don't necessarily apply to believers. There are also some Christians who don't believe in it[3], so it seems like an unecessary generalization.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...