God more than likely does not exist

Source correctionIn round 1 the quote by Sam Harris that started with "Given all that this God of yours does not accomplish.." did not go to the correct link. As such the round 1 source [2] should be...Opening Remarks for round 3I thank Con for their spirited reply. I still maintain that Con does not have a good prior justification for the existence of God and as such where God was used as a defeater for some of my arguments those arguments still stand.Cosmological argumentConsider what Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku says concerning dark matter...."What is dark matter that makes up 23% of the universe ? no one knows." [1]I cite this as a direct refutation of Cons claim that all things (at least in our universe) are made up of the 18 particles cited and thus the arguments built of this are unsound.I previously made the charge that Cons commits the composition fallacy, going from parts of the universe to determine the whole.Cons as a matter of necessity, can only get evidence from the parts and within the universe we find ourselves in (obviously).So Con makes the leap from that, to the conclusion that therefore the universe as a whole is contingent with the premise that all matter is contingent as the middle man.Con has gone from the "part" to the "whole (albeit in a more indirect way) and thus commits the composition fallacy.The universe did not begin to existConsider the Kalam Cosmological argument...........1.0. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2.0. The universe began to exist.3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [2]Now it may seem like I am making Cons case for them, but bare with me I am going some where with this.Consider what it means for something to BEGIN to exist. This debate would be claimed to exist but not only that, that it BEGAN to exist, cause we recognize that it exists but also there was a TIME PRIOR when it did not exist. This can be formulated as such...X beings to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not existAbsent the universe there is no "time" therefore there was no time prior when the universe did not exist, thus the universe did not begin to exist.Also notice that Con uses scientific evidence which is under pinned by a scientific conception of causation (eg particle physics) to justify their argument. But the scientific conception of causality can't be applied outside of space and time . With the universe as a whole not needing a cause that is to say it is not contingent, this directly refutes Cons argument which rests upon the premise of the universe being a contingent entity.Ontological ArgumentPresumably Cons argument here is about a non physical God, who among other things is a person, ergo a non physical person. So why can't we have a non physical unicorn or any other so called non physical thing ? Because Con says so ?Recall where I argued that just because you can imagine something exists doesn't mean it does exist. Con does not dispute this point.To put it more directly the conception of the greatest conceivable being that exists in both mind and reality is it's self a conception and thus like all conceptions does not necessarily correspond to reality.Consider how Con replied to my greatest conceivable unicorn...."This is because P2 is false; we cannot conceive of 'a unicorn of which no greater unicorn can be conceived' and so it cannot exist in the mind."But can the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind ? Thomas Aquinas didn't think so..."He (Aquinas) suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument" [3]Divine SilenceSame deal, without justification of the existence of God as a prior the argument stands.More likely we don't live in the best possible worldWithout a prior justification for the existence of God I maintain the argument stands.Con says..."Pro states that the burden of proof is on myself to prove that we do live in the best possible world, and not on him."No, absent any defeaters (like prior justification for Gods existence) all I have to do is justify that it is more likely we don't live in the best possible world. I make no such demand and I wonder why you would think that I have ?Con charges an emotional fallacy. Okey, take away the emotion and the FACTS are still the same.Recall all the things that have being bought up and could be bought up. Animals eating each other alive, earth quakes, aids, poverty, slow and painful deaths and once again I repeat Sam Harris (rough) stats and state of the world..."9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five...That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony"Consider the following two options...1) We live in the best possible world2) We don't live in the best possible worldMy modest proposition here is just that it is more likely we don't live in the best possible world. Not claiming that with 100% certainty just that it is more likely. And if all the things that have being mentioned in this debate isn't in Cons view or anyone else a sufficient justification for this modest proposition then what would ?Moral Paralysis Remember here I have defined Unnecessary suffering = suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.Recall at the core of my argument is..."It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing suffering which was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good."Again what exactly is Cons refutation here ? That we need to have actual child rape to persevere the alleged greater good of the concept of child rape ? WHAT ? Free will defenseRecall how I argued the implausibility of the God given free will defense in an example of a child raped who gets a limb hacked off. And what you need to accept as true to make it work those being.........1) God makes a decision to value the free will of the child rapist to rape the child over the well being of the child.2) God allows the will of the child rapist to rape the child over the will of the child not to be raped.3) God allows the will of the child rapist to rape while not allowing other wills (eg the will of a child who has a limb hack off to be restored)Consider where Con says..."Free will is a matter of potential"Yes that is one of my points here. You have to accept as true God allows some potentials eg a person to rape a child yet denies other potentials like the child not to be raped among other things or have a limb restored.It is possible for God to create a world with free will & no moral evilCon claims that God can't create such a world as to do so would require God to impose physical limitations that would violate God given free will.God could create a world free of moral evil yet the people in it do not commit such acts. NOT because God stops them and/or imposes physical limitations to stop such moral evil acts, but because they CHOOSE not too.I even cited Cons own remarks here..."We can still have free will so long as each individual being has the potential to abuse it "The argument remains untouched.I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] [2] The Blackwell Companion Guide to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...