God more than likely does not exist

Thanks, ProRebuttalOccam's RazorMy opponent appears to be referencing Occam's Razor in arguing that the simplest explanation for suffering on earth is that God does not exist. I fail to see how this conclusion follows. It seems to me that at a minimum, the existence of suffering does not make God's existence any more or less likely. In fact, it could be plausibly argued that evil could not exist if there were no God, so that our disgust of "suffering" is only possible while God exists. At any rate, it certainly does not seem as though the conclusion "God does not exist" follows from the existence of suffering, nor is this conclusion by any means the simplest one, as Occam's Razor requires.Divine Silence (1)My opponent points out the various demands made by world religions (denying same sex marriage, contraception, etc.) I would note that we aren't debating a specific God or religion in this debate. The subject of the debate is whether or not it is likely that God exists, not whether or not it is likely that the Christian God, or the Muslim God, exists. So, even if my opponent is correct about divine silence (which I don't for a moment concede he is) it does nothing to show that God does not exist. It's entirely possible that God is not concerned about worldly matters and that the claims of various religions are unfounded.Divine Silence (2)My opponent argues here that the lack of comfort from God is evidence against His existence. Aside from the fact that billions of people feel comforted by God every day (this fact on its own defeats the argument), this argument fails for the same reason as Divine Silence Part 1 fails, namely there is no reason to think that God (if He exists) has a responsibility to comfort people. I'd again remind my opponent that we aren't debating the God of any particular religion.PrayerAgain, my opponent requires a God of which prayer is necessary. We are not debating any specific God, so this argument is irrelevant. With that being said, there is no reason to think that prayer does not have long-term effects (whether those effects be later in one's life or in an afterlife).The Best Possible WorldMy opponent has given a deductive argument:1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world2) More likely we don't live in the best possible worldC) Therefore more likely God does not existI take issue with the second premise in this argument ("More likely we don't live in the best possible world"). The question is not whether or not the world we live in is the "best" from our perspective, but rather it is whether or not the world we live in is objectively the "best". What reason do we have for thinking that the world we live in is not the best possible world? I can't seem to think of any. My opponent suggests that a world in which there is even one less death (or any instance of suffering) is a better world than ours. My first objection is that my opponent hasn't given any reason to think that suffering leads to a "non-best" world. Perhaps it is through suffering that we gain more in an afterlife. Perhaps the balance of suffering vs non-suffering in this world is such that a maximal amount of individuals will inherit an afterlife. My second objection is that my opponent hasn't given any reason to think that there could be a world which contains (1) freedom of the will and (2) less suffering. But even if my opponent was able to show this, he would still have all of his work ahead of him in proving that suffering leads to a "non-best" world. Until this second premise is justified, we have no reason to accept the conclusion of the argument.Moral ParalysisMy opponent argues that if God exists then unnecessary suffering does not exist. I don't see any reason to think that this assertion is true. It seems to me that when the existence of free will is considered, unnecessary suffering is inevitable. Perhaps a world which contains both (1) free will and (2) suffering is greater than a world which contains neither. In any case, the burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate his argument to be sound. It seems as if the blame for the suffering in our world is being shifted from ourselves and our own free actions to God. I don't think it's reasonable to blame God for the suffering that we inflict upon others, but as I stated previously, there is also no reason to think that suffering does not lead to good. The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.Now, just what sort of viable candidates are there for a "cause" of the universe? It seems to me that there are two (if my opponent has any suggestions, I invite him to bring them forward): an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) or an unembodied mind (God). We can then ask ourselves, "What sorts of qualities must a 'cause' of the universe have?" It seems to me that the cause of the universe must be transcendent (this entity must exist outside of space and time), immaterial (this entity cannot have a physical substance as it exists outside of space), beginningless (in order that this entity could have created the universe without an infinite regress), and extremely powerful (after all, it must take some degree of power to bring about a universe). But, clearly, abstract objects don't stand in causal relations (the number 3 can't cause anything). So, we are left with only one viable candidate for the cause of our universe: God.SummaryI have refuted each of the arguments my opponent presented in favor of his position. In addition, I have presented a sound argument against his position. As my opponent has taken on the burden of proof in this debate, he must (1) refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument and (2) resurrect (no pun intended) at least one of his own arguments by demonstrating it to be sound. Until he is able to accomplish both (1) and (2), we can reasonably conclude that it is just as likely that God exists as it is that He does not exist.Thank you.http://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...