It is Probable That God Exists

Thank you again to Con for debating this with me.Con has not addressed a single one of my arguments, so I extend them all into the next round. Of course he may have just been concentrating on an opening argument, in which case I'll wait until the next round to address any rebuttals he makes. Additionally, his assertion that I have presented no evidence is baseless. I have presented philosophical evidence to make my case.Part 1: A Case for Weak AtheismWeak atheism is aptly named -- it is a weak position to hold. For if atheism is simply "lack of belief in gods," then this would mean rocks and cats are atheists. Additionally, you cannot prove this position true so it cannot be used to argue against a Theistic position, especially when evidence is presented for the Theistic position.1. Atheism is the Default PositionA. Null HypothesisHere Con is confusing types of argumentation. I am using philosophical evidence to make my case. One does not require physical evidence to prove something in the metaphysical realm.Con's examples are also irrelevant. We are debating the existence of God. If Con claims to have had a vision to be God's prophet, then yes that would require evidence. That is because anyone can claim to be a prophet, as many false prophets have. God has given us a test to see if a prophet is genuine. We need to test the prophet to make sure they are genuine. Also, it would be foolish to trust a "magic sandwich" to try and cure cancer over getting medical treatment. This does nothing to show that we need physical evidence to prove God's existence. To claim we do is to not understand the purpose of philosophy.FormulationNow, regarding Con's syllogism, his argument is invalid.The first premise fails. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They require ordinary evidence like any other claim.Consider this: If I tell you I have a brown dog with four legs, a wet nose, and a long tail, you would believe me. This is because you have experience with dogs. You know what they are like. You've seen many of them. But if I tell you I have a purple dog with six legs and four tails, you would rightly require evidence. What kind of evidence? You would have to see the dog. You would require the same evidence that led you to accept the first claim.Also, the second premise fails. God exists is no more an extraordinary claim than to claim that the universe came from nothing. The law of causality states that all effects have a cause. To claim that the universe came from nothing is unscientific because all effects need a cause. You and I needed a cause of our existence (our father's sperm mixed with our mother's egg). The universe, likewise, requires a cause of its existence. This cause must be outside itself because it would be impossible for a thing to cause its own existence. Therefore by Con's own definition, atheism would even be an extraordinary claim because claiming that the universe just came into existence on its own contradicts accepted physical laws; that is, things don't just come into existence from nothing (that is, non-being cannot produce being).Con's argument fails. Additionally, what I believe or don't believe is not the issue here (and as an aside, Con's seventh footnote is clearly false -- there is overwhelming historical evidence that Christ's resurrection happened, as I have even argued in another debate with Microsuck). [1] The difference between Christianity and the claims of these other religions Con brings up is that there is, indeed, evidence for many of the claims of Christianity. But again, this is a red herring. It has nothing to do at all with the arguments I presented.Part 2: A Case for Strong AtheismC2 -- The Argument from Non-BeliefI agree with Con that since all religions contradict each other, they cannot all be correct. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. However, just because all religions disagree does not mean that they are all incorrect or that they all, at least, don't contain some truth (for example, if Christianity is the true religion, then any religion that teaches we should love each other would still contain truth, even though its central claims are false).Now, Doug Krueger's argument is actually correct. God wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs for salvation. However, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Con offers a simplified version but he has actually offered a non sequitur.I agree with Con's first two premises and first conclusion (which are, ironically, the only ones he defended). These are all uncontroversial. Christians believe these. However, Con's fourth premise fails. God has given us all free will. Therefore, we have the choice to choose to do good or to do evil. We have the choice to believe in Christ or to reject Christ. Go wants everyone to be saved, but not at the expense of free will.Con has not addressed any of my arguments, and Con's own arguments fail. I look forward to our next round. [1] http://www.debate.org...;