It is highly unlikely that God exists.

1. The difference between a parent/child relationship and a God/universe relationship is a rather trivial one. I understand that Christians revere God as their spiritual Father. But in reality, God is not the biological "father" of the universe (not in the sense that we usually acknowledge anyways); rather, he is the "designer" of the universe. Parents are not more complex beings than their children simply because they are not the "designer" of their children. Their control over their children is only as powerful as their DNA allows it to be. God, on the other hand, has full control of the universe (although this trait is not included in our definition, I may safely assume that my opponent worship a Christian God since he quoted the Bible. And A christian God does have total control over the universe). Thus, God is undoubtedly a more complex being than the universe. If we acknowledge this fact, I now refer back to my first argument, which is that based on statistical probability, it is far more likely that the universe does not need a God. 2. My opponent begged the question : "If no one created the universe, how does it exist?" He cited a website to use several scientific ideas to support the existence of God, with the main one being the anthropic principle. However, with all due respect to my opponent, I must say that the information on that website is intentionally misleading. The designer of the website apparently has no deep understanding of the "anthropic principle" in the first place. This principle was never an idea to bolster the existence of God. Here the "Creationist version" of the anthropic principle: "Look at all the improbability that life exist on earth. Look at all the danger in the outer space that might easily make life on earth non-existence. If [insert a scientific value of an element on earth] had been off by 1 percent, we might not even exist. Look at this value and that value and that value...... if those values had been off by just a little bit, we might not even exist. Thus the probability that we exist without God's intervention is so low. What are the chances that earth just happened to be able to support life?" I should emphasize again that the central question that these people have is that: "What are the chances that earth just happened to be able to support life?" A normal person can easily spot the logic fallacy of this question. Whoever came up with this argument already has this assumption built in mind: Life started on earth because the conditions on earth were built to support life form. But how do we know that the conditions on earth were built to support life form? Because life started!!! To defeat this argument, one simply need to look at the universe itself, where the vast majority of the stars and planets are not supportive of life form, and ask himself:"Why is there no life out there?" And the answer is trivial--because those planets and stars cannot support life. At least to our knowledge, Earth is the only planet capable of supporting life. And guess what? Life DID start on earth. The anthropic principle was never about probability(if you understand the term "probability" correctly). If anything, we know that the chance that earth being capable of supporting life is EXACTLY 100 percent, because life DID start on earth. As for those "conditions suitable for life" that the website posted, you don't even know what those conditions are unless life form has started!! Here is a "correct version" of the anthropic principle:"We know that the conditions on earth were suitable for starting life because we are living right now" As for my opponent asking that if no one created the universe, how does it exist? I must admit that I don't know the answer, neither does science at the current state. However, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that we need any imaginary(again, no offense intended) figure with no scientific evidence to complete this unknown area. More than a century ago, Darwin did not know how all the animals exist. Instead of being convinced that God created all of them, he went on research and came up with the theory of Evolution! Granted, Evolution does not explain how life started, let alone how the universe started. But it at least explained how the Human race started, how the dog race started, how fish came to existence..... We are closer than ever on our path to unlock the secrets of the universe, and the last thing we need is to be convinced that " since God created the universe, there is no purpose to research on the origin of the universe" Both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory don't explain the origin of life and the universe, but, everyone should admit, they are really close! Evolution mapped out the progression of life and the Big Bang theory mapped out the progression of the universe. Recently, chemists can even create amino acid in the lab. Amino acid is the basic building block of all life forms. If we human can create the basic building block of all life, don't you think that universe is able to create life without resorting to supernatural forces? Again, science do not know the origin of the universe.... yet. But the notion of God, as I illustrated is a flawed and unneeded one.