It is improbable that God exists.

I'll start with rebuking my opponent's case, then going to respond to the arguments against my own. While my opponent makes seemingly valid points, I argue in contradiction of the points. I will reply to the arguments in the order the pro makes them, for added clarity. First, let’s start where my opponent talks about the existence of other religions casting doubt on whether or not god exists. This arguments makes a few assumptions, assumptions that are fallacious in nature. He assumes that the existence of other gods or deities of other religions disproves the Judeo-Christian god. However, this is fallacious because he discounts the possibilities of two distinct possibilities: other religions being incorrect, and more than one religion being an existing religion. I will argue both of these points separately, in the order given. a. My opponent fails to consider the possibility of, when stating these other religions, that they may be incorrect and their respective gods do not exist. But that’s like saying that just because I say that the sky is blue in America and purple in Australia, then the sky is probably not blue in America. Also, don’t grant my opponent access to the argument that God has not tried to show that he is the one true god. In many chapters spread across both the Old and New testament, there are recounts of God using his divine might to crush the opposition of those who believe in pagan gods or in other religions. And allow me access to using the bible as a reference because a) the topic is inherently a debate about religion and it is the most relevant source, b) it is the most predictable source, since I am inherently defending the possibility of the Christian god existing, c) without the bible as a source, I cannot even possibly defend my side since I would no longer have access to relevant topic literature, but also that d) my opponent also references the bible in his case, making it unfair to allow him to quote the bible and not allow me as well. b. My opponent also fails to consider the possibility of other gods existing alongside the Judeo-Christian god, which in no way discounts its existence. While in the Bible it references that God is the One true God, this is in no way specific to the existence of other deities. All it is saying is that he is the strongest, the ultimate god. Which doesn’t say that other gods can’t exist. Because of these fallacious assumptions, it is enough to discount the argument made here. Next, let us talk about the B point of his argument, where he’s talking about the demographics of theism proving atheism true. There are numerous problems with this argument, or more specifically, his implication as to what it means. First, there’s no actual reason or proof as for why what he is claiming is even true. All he says is that since the demographics for theism are better explained by atheism (an already confusing statement in itself), then atheism trumps theism. But he provides no actual warrant for why this is true. He just says it is. He tries to provide some mental brain map about how the argument works, but all this does is restates his argument: it doesn’t provide any reason for why it is true. It just assumes that it is true and moves on. So as long as I say it isn’t true, you’ll be disregarding this argument in this round. It isn’t true. Now, let’s move down to the real meat of my opponent’s case, which is the second contention talking about the incoherency of God. My opponent starts off the entire section with a heavily fallacious statement that more or less says “If you contradict yourself, you don’t exist. ”Excuse my lapse in professionalism for a moment, but what the heck does this even mean? Does this mean if I disagree with myself I don’t exist anymore? That if I say one wrong thing that’s contradicting the truth that I drop off the face of the Earth? What this argument inevitably boils down to is if we lie, thus contradicting the truth, do we then exist? This argument is obviously incorrect in a multitude of ways, but I will just point out a few relevant examples in terms of our actual debate. If I were to say I am debating the pro side of the resolution, I would be contradicting the truth of the situation, since I am obviously debating the con side of the resolution, and then I would supposedly not exist. This is by the definition of contradiction imposed by the pro exactly what he says it is. Just for giggles, I am debating the pro side of the resolution. Now that we have established how I don’t exist, let’s establish why my opponent doesn’t exist. The very impact of this argument is summarized a few lines lower when he says:(1) Any Being with contradictory attributes cannot exist. (2) God has contradictory attributes(3) Therefore, God cannot exist. Wait, did he just make the impact as to be God doesn’t exist? I thought, as per the resolutional analysis given in round one that the pro wasn’t debating to falsify a religion. If God were to not exist, then the Christian faith would be falsified. Wouldn’t this be a contradiction? Now neither of us exist. And this would also extend past the debate round to everyone who has ever told a single lie that contradicts the truth. So then anyone who has ever lied, even just once, in their life no longer exists. Why does this now sound like Inception? Moving past the Christopher Nolan jokes, I would also argue that God himself is not contradictory; rather the people who interpret what God says and records what they interpret contradict each other. The entirety of the Bible was recorded through, according to the Bible, visions and dreams granted to followers by God, telling them how things should be and how things were in the past. The people he spoke to scurried off like good little Christians and recorded the message as that individual interpreted it. They then all compile their writings and boom, we have a Bible. But, as is normal for imperfect human beings, people may misinterpret things, and thusly creating the contradictions we are so quick to blame on God. Next, move onto the part of the argument where he talks about how God cannot have free will and be omnipotent at the same time, thus causing a contradiction and proving his non-existence. First off, I’ve already shown you how foolish the whole ‘if you contradict yourself, you don’t exist anymore’ line of thought is. But secondly, these two traits don’t conflict in the first place. God can have omnipotence to have a plan for you since birth, but as sinful humans who are in no way, shape, or form perfect, we often either stray from his plan or refuse to follow it at all. Thusly, God then needs to have free-will in order to adapt the plan to our current situation to always have a road we can take to get to heaven. So while in theory they may seem contradictory, the nature of our humanity prevents them from contradicting. Now, let's go over and look at some of the things he said against my case. Off of my first observation, where the burden of proof was placed on the pro debater, all he basically does say is that this is true. So in the case of a tie or an unclear with for either side, you'll be voting con. Next, off of my first reason why I only need to respond to the pro's arguments in order to be merited a win, he says that I have to prove the resolution false. I can do this by only responding to the pro's arguments. By being pro, my opponent has to prove the resolution true. If I am disproving the affirmative, I am therefore disproving the resolution, or proving it false. So really his response is just irresponsive. Since I'm running out of characters, I'll make the rest of my responses brief. Since he doesn't provide you with a sufficient metric to measure a percentage, it's impossible to affirm the resolution. He changes up the resolution from improbable to impossible mid-debate, which is highly unfair. Extend my first reason why God possibly exists. Look to the arguments against contradictions.