God as explained by all religions does not exist.

As a brief roadmap, I only give my case in round two, I will not be doing rebuttals until round 3. Observations: As the Con in this debate, in order to win the round there has to be a presentation of logical arguments for the likelihood of gods existance according to the descriptions of different religions. In contrast, Pro has to prove that god as explained by all religions does not exist. C1 - A theory for gods existance, regardless of religion, is just as valid as other theories for origins:A: First, we must define a theory as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. " There are fundamental logical flaws that exist with all theories of origins, but these logical flaws ultimately don't disprove them. For example, The Big Bang Theory has evidence to support it, but the problem lies in the questions that cannot be answered. It's the same idea with religious deities; no doubt there will be some logical questions that cannot be answered, however, just like these logical questions don't disprove The Big Bang Theory, they also don't disprove gods existance. B: Specifically, my opponent is not attempting to prove that god doesn't exist, but he is merely trying to prove that no god explained by a specific religion exists. First of all, there are plenty of religions that were not recorded throughout history with literature. There is no viable way for him to disprove all of the religions throughout history without knowing what they actually believed. It's entirely possible that a religion we haven't discovered could have been one that actually presents the truth. C2 - The likelihood of a god existing from one of the hundreds of thousands of religions throughout human history is likely:A: What is the chance of Yahweh not existing? What about the Christian Trinity? Vinshnu? Zeus? Allah? Isis? Each probability might be close to one: each God may be unlikely. But multiply them together and the chance of none of them existing drops way down and makes it much more probable. B: How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable? The best explanation for this is probably god defined by religions. Science can observe these laws, but at this moment in time, religion offers the best explanation, not necessarily for origins, but for big questions such as these. C3 - Religions and contradictions:A - Shintos: Shintos believe in kami. They are spirits which take the form of things and concepts in life, such as wind, rain, mountains, trees, rivers and fertility. In contrast to many monotheist religions, there are no absolutes in Shinto. Much like all other religions, there is no way for the Pro to actually prove none of these gods exist in this resolution. He can point out contradictions such as the omnipotence idea etc, but not all religions have these flaws. In fact Shintos, I would argue, have none of these contradictions that major religions such as Christianity have. They have logical flaws, yes, but logical flaws as I've discussed briefly in C1 do not disprove an idea. I affirm, back to you con.