The existence of God is unlikely

Thanks Con. Onto the last round. Con hasn't refuted premise 1 of my argument. The only thing he says is that God's moral perfection could be completely missed up. But by saying God's morality is missed up does nothing to refute my argument. He's just agreeing with me that if some kind of God exist he's either morally indifferent or evil. And therefore we can conclude there is no morally perfect being. Con says that God made good and evil, and therefore he can define what's good based on his own decisions. This argument begs the question because it asumes that there needs to be a God in order for things to be considered morally good or morally wrong. Con also said that God made evil. But if that's true then the morally perfect God would not exist, and I would win the deabte. In the first part of his conclusion Con says:"An argument from evil can never disprove the existence of God; all it shows is that if God does exist, he is a colossal jerk."I agree with Con that you can't disprove the existence of God by an argument from evil. However my argument from evil wasn't trying to disprove the existence of God. It was only trying to show that the existence of God is unlikely. It wasn't an absolute claim, rather an evidential one. Con says that all an argument from evil can do is show that God is a jerk. But if God's a jerk, then he's not morally perfect. So Con would essentially be agreeing with me that the God we're debating over doesn't exist. And therefore he would admit defeat and declare me the winner. In the second part his conclusion Con says that if I want to disprove God, I need an argument that addresses God's existence instead of his character.This is a complete misrepresentation of my argument from evil. Firstly my argument wasn't set out to disprove the existence of God, rather it was about showing God's existence as unlikely. If I was trying to disprove the existence of God I would have used a logical argument from evil not a probabilistic one. I explained the differnce betwen these two arguments from evil in round 2. Secondly the probabilistic argument from evil does address God's existence unlike what Con claims. Simply put what the probabilistic argument from evil tries to demonstrate is this: if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being, then there are good reasons to think that such a being does not exist due to the fact there are many instances of apparent gratuitous evil. All of Con's rebutals could be summerised as follows:#1 God can do contradictory things. #2 God defines good and evil. Therefore the atheist can't say what is morally right or morally wrong without God. The first rebuttal fails simply because contradictions are impossible. I gave the example of the married bachelor to demonstrate that. The second rebuttal also fails because it begs the question. Con hasn't even given us a reason for why we should believe good and evil can only exist if we posit God. Not only that, but Con broke the rules and didn't even put forth an argument. He just went right into rebuttals carelessly. Because he did that, I think he should lose some credibility. ConclusionIn this paper I have successfully argued that the existence of God is unlikely. And that Con has completely failed to debunk my probabilistic argument from evil. Therefore we must accept that the existence of God is unlikely.