God more than likely does not exist

I thank Philocat for their opening argument.Opening remarksPhilocat here on in referred to as Con has attempted to provide two main arguments to act as aprior justification for the existence of God as a counter to my arguments. But should these arguments be accepted as good arguments for the existence of God ? I don't think so, I shall now explain why.Cosmological argumentAs Con points out even accepting this argument only justifies a very vague notion of something super natural & non contingent existing. So even if this arguments holds up it doesn't do much for Cons position here. Never the less I have some objections.Consider Cons first premise..."P1: All physical entities have contingent existence"Our data here is EXTREMELY LIMITED to a very small part of the universe in a very small time frame when compared to the billions of years of the universe..........and counting. Con makes the leap here from that extremely limited sample to justify a premise about the universe everywhere, past/present/future without exception. I submit this is a huge over reach by Con.It gets worse for Con here, remember as Con defines the universe as..."'all existing matter and space considered as a whole" ""The logical fallacies of composition and division are a pair of fallacies which are based on a confusion between what is true of the part and what is true of the whole. The fallacy of composition is an incorrect inference from what is known of the parts to asserting the same of the whole; and the fallacy of division is the reverse, from the whole to the part" [1]As Con points out..."Every single physical entity we have ever experienced has contingent existence" And what and where exactly is this experience that Con talks about ? inside and concerning parts of the universe of course !!!As such even if it was the case that all parts of the universe were contingent it would be fallacious to then conclude therefore the universe as a whole is contingent. Ontological ArgumentWhat you need to appreciate and be very keenly aware of is how the argument is trying to go from God as a conception to the conclusion that this conception of God must exist not just in the imagination but also beyond it (reality). So first things first, just because something can be imagined doesn't mean it ACTUALLY exists. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine a unicorn right now. Does the fact you can imagine a unicorn mean it actually exists ? of course not. I don't think anyone one the planet would disagree with this point.Okey now what if I told you about a very special unicorn, this is the GREATEST CONCEIVABLE unicorn. Now you see it would be quite absurd if it did not exist because the greatest conceivable unicorn that only exists in the imagination isn't the GREATEST CONCEIVABLE unicorn now is it ? that's a contradiction in terms ergo the greatest conceivable unicorn exists in both mind and reality.Does the fact that I can conceive of the greatest God/Unicorn/whatever mean it actually exists ? no ? does the fact I can claim that that conception of God/Unicorn/whatever also contains the conception of it being greater to exist in both mind and reality as opposed to just mind mean that that conception must also CORRESPOND to reality ? no.God exists v God does not existCon didn't dispute the reasoning of occams razor here but rather seeks to justify the existence of God. Without such a justification this argument still stands.Divine SilenceCon makes the point about other kinds of prayers, fair enough. That doesn't refute the argument here. Once again without a prior justification for the existence of God the arguments stands.More likely we don't live in the best possible worldOnce again Con sought to negate this argument by seeking to justify the existence of God. Without such a prior justification I maintain that the arguments stands. I would also note Con tries to push the burden of proof here to ridiculous levels when they demand that I..."3) Presents evidence that we definitely do not live in the best possible world" You don't have to definitely prove the non existence of alien abduction or the non existence of matrix or the non existence of demons to justify these things are more likely to not exist.To add some more weight here that more likely we don't live in the best possible world I refer once again to Sam Harris..."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" [2]Moral Paralysis Consider where Con says. "Pro opines that if all evil is necessary then we ought not to stop it." & "In his example of Down's Syndrome, the necessity of it is that it engenders human compassion and medical development."If child rapists did not exist then there would be no raping of children ergo it could be claimed that therefore the existence of child rapists is "necessary". But notice the difference between that kind of necessity and the more specific kind of necessity that the moral paralysis argument is based on....Unnecessary suffering = suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. And in case it wasn't obvious that also means...Necessary suffering = suffering which is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.Even if we grant that the various "evils" Cons words not mine were necessary to bring about certain things this in of it's self doesn't deal with the more specific kind of suffering that the moral paralysis argument is based on.As such I think it is still the case that It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering [suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good] does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing suffering which was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.Free will defenseCon has made claims about "moral evils" being the result (presumably) of God given free will. These are just bare assertions on their own and should be rejected until given justification. I could just as easily assert we don't have any God given free will, you know one bare assertion is as good as another.For example if it is pointed out some child is raped and tortured and has a limb cut off in the context of arguing against "God" you can bet that the free will defense will by employed. I don't think the free will defense is the powerful counter that some people think it is. Consider the assumptions that have to be accepted in order to make this God given free will to work.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)Again you can retreat to the logical possible here, but plausible ? nope.It is possible for God to create a world with free will & no moral evilAlso consider where Con says..."We can still have free will so long as each individual being has the potential to abuse it "It's possible to live in a world of God given free will to commit moral evil yet to live in a world where no such moral evil takes place cause everyone although having the POTENTIAL to commit such moral evils chooses not too. As such in any sense of the word it is NOT necessary for moral evil to exist in order to have God given free will.The God as defined could create such a world, yet we don't live in that world. Why ? cause more likely such a God does not exist.I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...[2]