Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

Thanks for the response! I'm glad that you got your internet back in time. For the readers, I usually don't quote the opponent's argument, then respond -- since I think that practice is usually just to have a longer looking argument. However, my opponent's response is a little blocked up, so I'm going to be briefly summarizing each of his arguments in a quote. The quote is representative of his argument, not his exct words (to avoid confusion.)Let's get started.--------------------------"The number of possible cookies (gods) is irrelevant, because there can only be one god."This is actually a very debateabe issue. For instance, many of the Greek gods have the capability of coexisting. However, for the sake of the argument I'll assume that there probably is only one god. I don't think the opponent is really understanding the heart of my infinity argument. I'm not (explicitly) stating that it's impossible to know how many gods there are, but rather there are an infinite number of possible gods, so the probability of any one particular god existing is quite low. Let's look at the cookie example again.This time, we'll imagine that each cookie is different. One's chocolate chip, one's oatmeal-raisin, etc. Let's also assume the number of unique cookies is infinite. While we might assume that only one cookie lies beyond the wall, the infinitude of possible cookies makes the likelihood of any one particular cookie extremely low. Think of it like there's some machine that bakes a single, random cookie. The opponent is arguing that this cookie is probably a chocolate chip cookie, whereas I am saying the sheer number of possible cookies makes this very, very unlikely. Mathematically, it makes the effective probability essentially zero. For The OpponentThe opponent keeps saying he doesn't like math, which I imagine is a result of not being exposed to it enough to appreciate its power. I the reader understands my argument, feel free to skip this next part. This is purely for the opponent, in hopes that he can understand my argument (since it is quite mathemematical in nature.)In my argument, I referred to a set G that contained all possible gods. My argument also implies a set P, which is of the same (infinite) size as G and which contains probabilities. To make this clear, look at this set.There is a set D which is all possible dice rolls from a 6 sided die. It looks like this:D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}There is also a set P which is the probability of each roll:P = {1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6}So if we want to know the probability that D(0) [which is 1] happens, we simply look at P(0), which is 1/6. We now know the probability of a 1 rolling is 1/6. Notice that the probability of each event happening is exactly 1 over the length of D. D's length is 6, so the probability is 1 over 6, or 1/6. Let's extend this to the god set. G = {Zeus, God, Allah, Osiris, Sheogorath, ... , None, ..., unknown god a, unknown god b, ... }This set is infinitely long, due to the unknown gods. So P is:P = {1/inf, 1/inf, 1/inf, ... }So the probability that God exists, aka the probability that G(1) exists can be found by looking at P(1), which is 1 / inf. This probability, 1 / inf, tends toward 0 and is considered to be essentially 0. This is what my first argument is saying. In my next argument, I look at ways that we can change the set P, to make it more realistic based upon our physical world. So if there was a world where 5's could not roll, the set P for our dice scenario would be:P = {1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 0, 1/5}That's what my next argument does. We will look at that now. -------------------------------"God has changed my life and I know he exists."While I do believe that you feel this way, it really doesn't do much for us in the debate. Since neither I nor my readers can experience what you have, there's really no way we can make judgements about it. --------------------------------The Evolution of ManThe opponent's argument here has two essential parts. I'll look at each of these. The origins of life: This is possibly one of the most fascinating responses to "origin of life" evolution that I have. Seen we could have a very long debate on this topic. However, so that we don't get off topic, I'll need to point out that my argument does not require us to understand the origin of life, evolutionarily.My argument was basically this: The Bible claims that man was created in his current form by God whereas evolutionary theory, as it concerns recent life (not origins of life) shows that man did not always exist in his current form. We have found numerous direct ancestors to man. I suppose that I am really arguing with "long-term natural selection". The specifics of the evolution from non-living to living material really isn't part of my argument. So long as I demonstrate that it is likely that man did not always exist in his current evolutionary form, my point stands. My opponent talks on this next. The origins of man: The opponent references two books here. Let's look at the original first.The opponent claims that he believes the book thoroughly undoes natural-selection evolution, but only brings up one experiment regarding peppered moths. In this experiment, scientists assumably attempted to quicken the life/death cycle of an insect with an already short life-space in attempts to observe some form of natural selection. While some biochemical proccesses were improved, it mostly just resulted in crippled insects. I am not at all surprised that this experiment is being looked at with scrutiny by the author. Some important characteristics of evolution include a) extremely long periods of time and b) a diverse ecology. No scientist can effectively reproduce 100,000+ of life/death cycles in any reasonable amount of time. Even if they good, the shorter life-spans of the insects would mean their behavior would be radically different than if they led their normal life-span. What's worse, evolution usually requires a diversity of circumstances and environments to actually naturally select toward, something else missing in the experiment.No doubt that this experiment is a bad attempt to prove evolution, but it does little to change early man fossil records that the opponent himself linked in his argument. Onto the other book. A note to the readers: I've been responding to my opponent's argument as I've read it. I just now finished his response to evolution, which turned out to be the finish to his entire argument. This seems to be a hot topic for my opponent and I fear that it could take over the debate again in future rounds if I am not careful, so here's what I'm going to do. I will be dropping the Evolution Argument. This is not because I believe the opponent is correct, but rather because a response to it would take up my entire 10,000 characters and miss the entire point of the debate. I will cede that there is not not enough evidene to objectively say that the evolution of man is accurate. This allows for the possibility that God did create man, but does nothing in the way of proving that. Where Are We NowThe opponent's main argument was regarding evolution, a mere subpoint of my "changing weights" argument. Even if we drop it (which I did), we are still left with the "creation of the world" argument and the "great flood" argument. This demonstrates that the Bible made innaccurate claims, which supports the idea that we should reduce the probability that the Christian God exists.Even if we should assume that my entire "changing weights" argument falls, we are still left with the probability of the Christian God existing at 1/inf (see my first argument.) Since 1/inf is strictly less than .5, I have upheld my burden in shows that the Christian God most likely does not exist. Unless my opponent produces some sort of evidence showing that the Christian God is more likely to exist (thus effectively increasing the weighted probabiity of God), my original argument still stands and we are left with the same conclusion: that the Christian God most likely does not exist. I have to apologize to the reader for following along on the evolution topic for a while before dropping it. I realized it was to the benefit of this debate to drop it only after having talked about it a while, but I couldn't bring myself to simply delete what was already there. So again:1. Opponent needs to show evidence which effectively raises the probability of god.2. Alternatively, opponent could refute the mathematics of my first argument. 3. Opponent needs to respond to the "creation of the world" argument and the "great flood" argument. The creation of the world argument is the most important one to hit, of the two. I look forward to my opponent's response.