Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

Thanks for your round 2 thoughts. I’m ok with your definition of "probably" as "more likely than not". It makes the debate a lot less rigorous (for you), but also makes it less meaningful. I am hoping you will “make a reasoned argument based on evidence.” to support your position that “Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.”To me that means you will present a case, based on evidence, that flows to the conclusion that “God probably doesn’t exist.” Remember that a lack of need for God has nothing to do with His actual existence. For example - I have never seen a platypus, and do not need one to explain any aspect of life. This does not give me any evidence to say that platypuses (as a class or species) do not exist, or that “Perry The Platypus” is only a fictional character. My knowledge or my need for explanations are irrelevant to this question.I want to start by challenging your use of the word myth in response to my first point.The Oxford dictionary defines myth in two ways: [1]noun 1 traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: 2 widely held but false belief or idea: a fictitious or imaginary person or thing: an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:My first point was “ The majority of people through recorded history have believed in intelligent, superior beings. Using the word myth in the first sense does not apply here as point one is not about “traditional stories” or “explaining natural or social phenomenon.” Using the word in its second sense is inappropriate unless you are simply restating your premise, but then it is not really an argument for your position.Now a response to your comments: “religious" genes persist and spread through the population. Genes code for proteins. - There is no evidence for a “religious gene”. “why aren't all animals religious?” Great question. How do you know they are not? Jesus said that “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” [2] I don’t know if they are worshiping and talking to God, their spirit speaking to Him. Good question though.“There are two possible reasons. First, the stories are true. Second, the stories are myths created for one/both of the reasons in Point 1.” You say “Occam's Razor favors the second option” - this presumption is false. O.R. states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.[3] God exists is one assumption. People creating complex stories to explain the world gets more complex at each new explanation.You ask “If myths are true, why do we have no physical evidence?” I am curious to ask, what kind of physical evidence are you looking for? The God of creation has left some evidence for you to examine.It is circular reasoning to say “there is no God, only matter, space and time” and then say “the universe can’t possibly give evidence for God because there is no God”You state “ Just because people are changed by something doesn't mean it really happened. I could get really stoned and hallucinate a pink rabbit who tells me to quit drugs and become a Mormon. The pink rabbit changed my life, but that doesn't make him real.” Two answers to this: 1) I would bring in Occam’s Razor to this. Hallucinating pink bunnies (without drugs or any other known cause) is quite a elaborate explanation. Experiencing God is simple. 2) A changed life is a sign of changed beliefs. Most of us do not hold delusions so tightly as those who deny the words and experiences of all those who have met with God.You challenge “reliability of witness testimony.” In a court of law witness testimony is accepted unless there is clear physical that disputes the word of a witness. You are presenting no physical evidence disputing witness testimony. (In fact you look at the entire universe and claim there is no physical evidence) You say “People can be easily fooled, so testimony enough is not sufficient to prove God's existence.”You forget that I don’t have to prove anything :-) You are PRO, and you have the burden of proof. I am still waiting for your logical and evidence based arguments to support your resolution: “Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.” I will stop here for the moment hoping you present a case. I was a little disappointed with your examples from “Science” as I get the idea that you are religiously devoted to the boys club of the new atheism. Do you really believe the examples you gave are the best for your position? I love the quote from Blaise Pascal; "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadow for those who don't." [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] John 4:24 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor