Atheism or Theism

RESOLUTION: I am defending that on balance of probability, the existence of God is =>50% My opponent has already lost this debate. First off, he needs to prove that the existence of God has less than 50% odds. Yet, how could one calculate such odds in the first place? Simply put, we can never know. We can rule out some specifically defined gods, like Zeus was disproved (<50%) when the first man climbed Mount Olympus and found it vacant. However, an omniscient/omnipotent god of a finite universe cannot be disproved. Indeed, we can question whether or not our view of reality is true. Perhaps we are in the Matrix or a brain in a vat being fed an illusionary cosmos. How can we accurately determine that our reality is true? What are the odds of that? If we cannot accurately gauge that, then we also cannot accurately gauge the odds of a creator god either. However, some mathematicians have attempted to calculate such odds and I freely admit that I am not a master of statistical math. So, to rely on an expert, the physicist Stephen Unwin calculated the odds of God's existence and concluded "The probability that God exists is 67%." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Refutation of Contention #2. My opponent states that the demographics of religious belief point against a god. This makes no sense. First, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true. Perhaps Christians are correct, or ancient Babylonians, or Muslims. Perhaps none of them are. Perhaps the true religion has not been handed down to us yet. Perhaps God is not in direct contact with us at all. To quote my opponent, "indeed, God is incomprehensible compared to man." If we do not comprehend him, then how can we comprehend any plans he has for us? This also leads into a refutation of his Contention #3. Perfection, outside of mathematics, is entirely subjective. A perfect candy bar for you would not be perfect to me. If we are unable to comprehend a perfect objectively defined God, then how can we predict what a perfect universe would be like in his eyes? Before my opponent brings up the problem of evil, let me point out Round 1 of this debate. I agreed to debate the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient creator being. Not an all-loving being. Indeed, the religions he later mentions (Islam & Christianity) point AGAINST an all-benevolent being. I agree with my opponent that an atheistic/natural universe could predict our universe. But again, my opponent stated that God is incomprehensible. How can you possibly predict what a theistically-created universe would be like if you cannot comprehend the mind of the creator? I pointed out previously that perhaps no organized religion is true... so, what could you say about the universe that an omniscient and omnipotent being would design? Perhaps he wanted to create a universe that was good at manufacturing black holes. Perhaps he has a use for them. We cannot say and because of that, we cannot use my opponent's argument. As side notes:Premise 3, "Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false." Absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence. His example of a teleportation device equaling false is also flawed. Once upon a time, the idea that disease was caused by animals so small we couldn't see and that preyed upon us would have been regarded as insane. Evidence for bacteria was always there, we just didn't know how to look for it prior to developing microscopes and the proper experiments/data sets.