God more than likely does not exist

Many apologies for the previous forfeit Pro. I shall post my rebuttals from both rounds in this round if the word limit allows. I hope the voters will only mark me conduct, and I thank my opponent for extending his argument. R.1 You can’t prove god does not exist...?Apparently my opponent states that the disability to disprove something dictates if something exists. This is obviously false. Existence is not limited to what humans can perceive, and although I can understand if this is a weak excuse for an existence, it holds true. Therefore, the idea that the disability to disprove something solely judges existence is well. . .false, because it is plausible that there are things that exists, however we cannot perceive them. Does it mean that they do not exist? No. Which is why, my opponent’s argument falls. My opponent also states that the absence of evidence is another reason why god does not exist. Since when did existence have to rely on quantifiable evidence? R.2 Morality, Prayer, Divine silence So, my opponent’s argument can be simplified to... -God knows of “x” -”x” is considered to be immoral -God is immoral OR -God does not know of “x” -”x” is considered to be immoral -God is not immoral -However, god is not omniscient These two simplified premises are supposed to disprove god. Assuming my opponent describes god as unjust because of unjust things in the world, is false. This argument falls nicely with divine silence argument. You see, you cannot reach to a conclusion that god does not exist just because of unjust things in the world. Simply because, my opponent needs to elaborate his sense/view of morality. What do you mean by unjust/immoral? Only because our society has certain moral values does not dictate if those moral values are true to be followed by god. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Which is partly the reason why moral nihilism is the end result of non cognitivism. Please do keep in mind that prayer is irrelevant since we are not referring to religion. R.3 Defense of St. Anselm My opponent starts off with how existence is not a predicate. This concludes into that the argument makes the assumption that an existent god is greater than an existing one. This is where I make my argument. You see, I believe that the definition of “greatness” that Anselm put out was the validity of existence. Therefore, an object that does necessarily exists is “greater” than an object that does not necessarily exists. Lets put this into example with another possible interpretation. If we pick a child that loves its mother, the child can only love its mother if it exists. Same with any other trait. Therefore, the existing child is greater because it can possess that trait.So, my opponent states that my next ontological argument falls apart simply because he quotes a section from Aquinas about how god cannot be conceivable in the first place. He provides no further justification, besides the fact that only god could know himself. On top of that, this creates a clear contradiction to my opponents “You can’t prove god does not exist.” argument. R.4 Defense of William Craig's Ontological argument The general consensus of this debate is to argue in a way to determine a likelihood of god’s existence. This is the reason why the reverse model of the rebuttal for the ontological argument falls. My opponent cannot replace “It is possible that a maximally great being exists” with “It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.” This is simply because we are arguing for the sheer likelihood, and contention 3 certainly proves the greater likelihood of god’s existence.My intentions of posting that argument was because it shows how it is likely that god exists. This is all I need and I do not need to go further to prove god’s existence. R.5 Exists in all possible worlds Vs. Does not exist in all possible worlds I believe my opponent may have misinterpreted the argument. When I said that god exists in a possible world, I meant that since god is within possibility, he exists in some world that is also within possibility. There is really no way around that. Saying that there a possible world where he does not exist is false, since the possible world is within possibility, so is god therefore he must exist in that possible world. I request my opponent to elaborate on the “Necessarily true or necessary existence can be used to justify anything” since I fail to see how that is relevant. We can have a whole other debate in regards to unicorns, so how does it disprove god?So the reason why the possible world is the same as the real world (as used as in the context of this debate) is because reality is possible and within possibility. And since god is within possibility, and reality is within possibility then he is also within reality. R.6 Defense of Mulla Sadra To answer my opponent’s questions, I would first say that when Sadra says “existence” I believe she means everything within existence/reality. The existence that we have is perfect at that state. My personal interpretation is that there is nothing to compare tbe of state “x” of the universe because state “x” is perfect at being state “x” . There cannot be a more perfect state, because there is nothing to compare it to, and it is at its perfect state already. The reason why the lack of comparison implies perfection is because it is perfect-in its state. For an example (Assume the cut is an imperfection)-The red dress has has a cut-It is the only red dress-That dress is perfect since there is no other dress to compare to, making it the best dress with a cutSimilarly,-The red dress as a cut-There is another red dress with no cut-The red dress is without the cut is perfectNow, notice how the red dress without the cut is no longer a perfection, since we can compare it to another red dress. The cut hints an imperfection, but even the imperfection is the perfect imperfection because it is the only imperfection, therefore making the imperfection perfect.