Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

I apologize for my lengthy response. I had about 6,000 characters typed out when my browser crashed and I lost everything I had written. I took a day off to let the frustration go away. Anywho, this is the final round! I'm just going to briefly talk about where we are now in the debate, then speak on what my opponent said last round, then finally write a conclusion demonstrating why I have won this debate. Where We Are NowWhile many interesting discussions have taken place this debate with a ton of interesting points being made on both sides, one cannot ignore the fact that the opponent has failed to adequately combat my original argument regarding probabiity. Instead, he simply dismissed it, claiming that he didn't like math. It's true that many people don't enjoy math, but that is not a justification in dropping the argument. Based upon my first argument alone, I have won this debate round because a) it still stands and b) the opponent hasn't presented any arguments of his own in an attempt to prove that God probably does exist. Generally in a debate involving God, the person claiming his existence has full burden of proof. Being a little more lax, I decided to make this burden shared. Despite this, the opponent has not made any compelling arguments that would lead us to believe that God probably exists. I could end this debate here and now saying this alone -- however my thorough nature urges me to respond to my opponent's arguments last round for the sake of hitting all his counter claims and because he brought up a super interesting point. The Opponent's ArgumentsThe Creation of the World: My argument on this specific topic originally began with me claiming that our scientific understanding of how the world came to be is in direct conflict with the Biblical claim of how the world came to be. This discredits the Bible, making the likelihood of God existing diminish. My opponent's argument really doesn't address this. He claims that the fact that Biblical creation took 7 days and the fact that we still use the 7 day week implies that the creation story has merits. This is simply false. Time for a bit of history. Around 500 BC Babylonian astrologists started to officially define the term "week" as 7 days long. Their reasoning for doing this was so that the week would directly correspond with various phases of the lunar cycle. Specifically, even 4 weeks (a month) it was expected that the moon would complete one full lunar cycle. This was a very logical decision (based upon their knowledge of astronomy at that time) as weeks of different lengths did not well correspond with the lunar cycles, a hugely important phenomenon for people of that time. Since then, this 7 day week idea has been adopted across many cultures and religions. Interestingly enough, the names "Monday, Tuesday, etc. " are named after Greek gods. (This is not apparent unless you look at the actual Greek name for said Gods, at which point the correspondance is quite clear. ) Because the 7 day week was very popular around the time Genesis was actually written, it's not suprising at all that Genesis also adopted this format. In reality, we do not have a 7 day week because of the Bible, but rather the Bible has a 7 day week because that was already the standard at the time. As for my opponent's claim that an "accidental" life is not worth living, I have to personally disagree. (This point isn't really relevant to the debate, but I feel it must be said. ) One doesn't need a god to exist in order to have meaning in life. In a world without god, we have the freedom to define our own meaning for living. It may be helping others or succeeding, or discovering something new. Whatever it is, many atheists live very fulfillied lives without the belief that a god exists, simply because meaning comes from within. The Great Flood: Here the opponent talks about two things. First, the viability of an ark and second, geological evidence. On his first point, it is indeed quite possible that the ark described in the Bible was a well designed ship. At the time Genesis was written, the only way to cross the sea was on boats made of wood. It is not surprising to learn that, at a result, the people of that time were very knowledgeable on crafting boats. A good historical analogue for this is the society that built the Stonehenge. The particular elements that went in to building that surpass even our modern day understanding. We don't know how this society managed to move such large stones such a long distance. However, at the time those people had access to lesser technologies and thus developed those technologies in such a way to accomplish goals in ways that we cannot. Same goes for ship-building around the time of Genesis. Additionally, the fact that the ark could work at a theoretical level does not prove that it was ever built, much less does it prove that a Flood actually occurred. His second point is about geological evidence. He essentially claims that if a flood happened, it would be geologically evident. And I totally agree. If you'll look at my original argument, you'll see that I mentioned this exact point. I additionally presented evidence that looked at our geological situation and it concluded that a Great Flood simply did not happen. The opponent makes a good point, but it unfortunately is a point that supports my argument. ConclusionI made an argument based upon probability and demonstrated that, on a general level, it is very unlikely that the Christian God exists. I expanded upon this in my second argument, which looked at the inconsistencies in the Bible, as they compare to our current scientific understanding of what actually happened. In doing this, I demonstrated that these very significant errors in the Bible discredit it, which further lowers the probability that God exists. The opponent did not very well combat these arguments. The only argument that came up a draw in this debate was the evolution argument, but that argument was only a very small part of my entire case. The fact that it came up a wash does not in any way break my case. It should be clear to the voter that I have demonstrated here that it is not probable that the Christian God exists. Not only is the probability of God existing below 50%, but the probability is very, very low.