Atheism is more probable than Theism.

A and CI think you should reform the argument then. Such as C "This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?"You have not explained what is incoherent in the attributes of God. You have given the differing views of god. But whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it.This is the case of moving the goalpost. You have not given any specific incoherent attributes of God and both talk about the definition and description of God.Pro claims I straw manned the big bang. Yet he proved my point. He said the big bang wasn't the origin of the universe, but this is contrary to what others define the big bang as [1]"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe"BPro claimed I committed a straw man again. Yet he didn't explain why nor answer any of the questions proposed.Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2].Not because of the lack of evidence. If the Christian God is proven then logically Ra,Isis,Osiris,ect doesn't exist.Pro down right ignored me in this rebuttal.The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may beCONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary." Yes I understand this. This is why I said if you say its false because of no evidence is to commit the argument from ignorance. I didn't claim that is what you were saying.Cosmological Argument.Pro claims the universe always existed, but in different forms. This has not been proven in fact its just a hypothesisVirtual particlesPro seems to agree that these particles come from something. If quantum fluctuations caused the universe then what caused the quantum fluctuation? This hypothesis is self refuting because it is based (ostensibly) on some interpretations of quantum mechanics—which were derived by observing the universe. But if the universe is illusion then so is quantum mechanics; therefore, there is no reason to believe any conclusions allegedly derived from it.Paul Tobin's objection Pro says the objection is valid then goes on to agree that it doesn't disprove the argument. So its a red herring fallacy. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinitesIf one being is unlimited and infinite in greatness then he can be more great than another unlimited and infinite in greatness. Yet this is a contradiction,since if 2 exist one cannot be unlimited because it cannot limit the other that is unlimited.Moreover, this argument cannot prove:1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds.This can be disproven since not everyone is tortured or in pain. So in a sense you have a problem of good. If God wanted the world for evil it would be more evil than it is. 2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect UniverseThis is ignoring the possibility of sin and man by free will causing the world/universe to be imperfect. If God made something perfect he would be creating something equal to himself3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time.Since God would be timeless and would have created time, He can be omnipresentTAGI feel that Pro copped out with his genetic fallacy. I copied from a website so that means you can dodge the argument?Pro's genetic fallacy does not permit evasion "The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context"[2]In my conclusion Pro didn't fully refute the Cosmological argument. Pro's genetic fallacy and evasion of the TAG Pro's evasion on my objections on argument "B"Sources[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...