God more than likely does not exist

Thanks for the reply Pro. R.1 You can't prove that God (or the demon in front of your screen) doesn't exist.I felt like this part of my opponent’s argument was simply a repeat, and he did not really rebut it. However, I will rebut my opponent’s argument once again. You cannot put a measure off of “likelihood” off of evidence. This is simply because a lack of evidence, you can not reach to any conclusion whatsoever. It may, or it may not exist. This leads to the ontological argument which Alvin Planting and William Lane Craig certainly do show us that god is more likely to exist. Simply put, you cannot make subjective views off of evidence, to determine even the likelihood of something objective. R.2 A general concept of God vs a more specific concept of God (as defined in this debate)My opponent states that “Recall how I argued that anyone who wants to claim that God exists and that God is - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being without justification becomes more and more less likely to be the case.”The reason why you state it is less likely is because the definitions of good such as (Loving, morally good, just, etc…) I argued that Only because our society has certain moral values does not dictate if those moral values are true to be followed by god. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Which is partly the reason why moral nihilism is the end result of non cognitivism. Which disputes the “morally good/just part of my opponent’s argument. A personal being can be defined as a thought, so if Billy has a thought of god, god is Billy’s personal being. R.3 Occams RazorDivine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies My opponent needs to elaborate on the definition of “confirm nor denies” because then I can easily argue that god is in control of mankind, and denying Billy his candy/confirming Billy can have his candy proves god. That being said, any higher authority can prove the existence of god (according to my opponent). Plus, since when did god have to confirm of deny in order for him/her to exist? Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of needThis literally proves nothing. If Billy is having suicidal thoughts, then one can easily argue that it is not worthy enough to be comforted. Why? Because this is all subjective views. In fact, benevolence does not necessarily have to be derived from a comforting being. This is because there is nothing inherently wrong with not helping a suicidal person. R.4 Prayer healing has not being shown to work.Again, prayer is irrelevant since we are not referring to religion. When did an answer to a prayer have to dictate whether god exists? God is defined as a being, therefore he/she has a choice to answer a prayer.If god does not answer a prayer that would show him to be benevolent (Eg. Starving kids praying), then it still is irrelevant because there is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong with starving kids. (Or any other example).R.5 God & the best possible world (or not)Actually, I argued how we are perfect because there is nothing else to compare to. Which is why I will now defend against Mulla Sadra. “I find the concept of perfection used in this argument muddled. Most people operate on the understanding that to say something is perfect is that it can not be improved upon and or that any change in something that is perfect would mean it is no longer perfect.”You see, in this scenario perfection is not being used in subjective terms (E.g That war can be improved). Rather, why perfection is objective in this one is because if we do not compare anything else to, so that thing is perfect in the sense there is nothing to compare to, therefore making that item perfect. To take my opponent’s example using my name, I have the best name called “Commondebator” on this site simply because there is no other name “Commondebator” to compare to. R.6 Moral paralysisI have repeated this several times throughout the debate and it is evident that my opponent is not reading my argument. If there is suffering, there is nothing inherently wrong inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves.R.7 St Anselm's Ontological argumentCon misinterprets my argument since I am using “greatness” as a validity of existence. In my definition, the validity of existence is the likelihood, or the possibility of the existence. For an example, the red dress that is currently in front of me (exists) is greater than a red dress that may or may not exist. Only because, the red dress that is in front of me more likely exists than the dress that may not.If we pick a child that loves its mother, the child can only love its mother if it exists. Same with any other trait. Therefore, the existing child is greater because it can possess that trait.R.8 William Craig’s Ontological argument When we take the likelihood of god's existence, we are not talking about definitive proof. While both arguments are valid (RMOA and the MOA), then we both need to advocate why one is greater than the other. Otherwise, we are getting nowhere. In order to advocate why the MOA is superior than the RMOA, I will do so in the rebuttal attacking the MOA.It is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists on some possible world. In the next premises, we replace in some possible world to every possible world making god necessary in a possible world. This seems odd, but an eternal being is only existing in possibility. Now, we can take this further stating that reality is within possibility. This does not make the argument non sequitur since, the necessity is implying only within possibility-or in a possible world that we do not know that exist, however may. Which then makes reality within possibility.R.9 Exists in all possible words vs Does not exists in all possible worlds. Again, when I said that god exists in a possible world, I meant that since god is within possibility, he exists in some world that is also within possibility. There is really no way around that. Saying that there a possible world where he does not exist is false, since the possible world is within possibility, so is god therefore he must exist in that possible world. What my opponent tried to do is, take “Within possibility” and changed it to “Not within possibility”, when the entire statement was solely referring to within possibility! So how can you change to definition of the statement?R.10 Modal realism has not being justifiedMy opponent tries to dispute the argument of how billions of dollars in a bank account is within possibility, therefore this is a billion dollars in a bank account. This is not what my argument is referring to if we take a supreme being into the equation. If a supreme being exists within possibility, then he exists in all possibilities/possible worlds. When we look at my opponent’s argument, it becomes clear that the argument he tried to replace with my argument does not work since the two arguments to not even match up.