It is likely that God exists

My opponent drops my arguments for the existence of God, but I will give him the chance to respond to them in the following rounds. I will now content myself with answering his questions and refuting his statements that attack the resolution. 'But by asking that the LIKELY-HOOD of God, suggests that your views may not necessarily be religious views?, Maybe agnostic?'Not at all, I am religious because I believe it to be true that God exists. However, I cannot prove that he definitely exists, so all I can do is to prove that it is likely that God exists. An agnostic does not believe theism is any more probable than atheism (and vice-versa) and that we cannot know either way (1), whereas I argue that theism IS more probable than atheism.'By going on the term likely-hood, we should be ridden of any knowledge that we have for the question and base our answer with pure ignorance and go by our common sense, logic and reason to determine whether or not God is plausible.'Why do you believe 'pure ignorance' should be used? I'm not too sure what you mean with this sentence. Ignorance is 'The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.' (2) and so presumably 'pure ignorance' is the condition of being even more uninformed. I struggle to see why such a condition is desirable in this debate.'the only evidence to what I can see in favour of God is that of an ancient book, with ancient text that has been written thousands of years ago.'I invite you to read my round 2 arguments, which explain the evidence in favour of God. In contrast, I do not believe that the Bible provides satisfactory evidence for God's existence so we must debate my own arguments, and not debate the veracity of the Bible because it does not pertain to the resolution.'What else, if anything do you disagree with science about?'There is no major scientific fact or theory that I outright deny.'what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?'I understand them, but I do not take them to be valid.'Have you given science a try?, Have you read about Evolution?'I study physics and mathematics at college; hence I have more scientific understanding than most people.'I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution.'This may well be true, but I very much doubt it applies to myself, and so this statement is not relevant to this debate.'Why is it that we have work to prevent evil from happening?'Hard work for a worthy cause is how we, as humans, develop as people. For example, someone can only become good at science if they are challenged to such an extent that they must work hard. If they are not pushed to work hard, then they cannot become more proficient at science. Therefore we can only become better people if we are challenged to work hard.'whilst bent over on our knees, praying to something we are told to be God, asking for love.'Praying and asking for love is the way in which we can open ourselves up, consenting if you will, to God's love. This is not a bad thing.'When he doesn't show himself and help those who need it most if he can't help everybody, instead he hides away whilst all this is going down. To me, I don't think this is very fair, maybe he's not a very fair person if you would care to answer that.'Most religions maintain the view that God works through people. For example, God would help victims of hurricanes by inspiring people to donate money and do humanitarian work. Just because he does not show himself does not mean that he is not helping.'God being proven through an ancient text book that was written in a time of science not being understood, or, centuries of specific research into Evolution of Humans and the world through multiple physical evidence to which I will go through at a later note. To which all evidence points towards the same direction which we can obviously only presume to be correct.'This is an invalid argument because its first premise, that the only possible proof of God's existence is contained within the bible, is false. This is because my arguments in round 2 do not rely on or even mention the Bible.'Is there any part of your religion you disagree with, if so, what? and why?'As a Roman Catholic, I disagree with the assertion that non-penetrative sex and contraception are essentially immoral (3), because the logic that is used to condemn these actions rely on a particular interpretation of Natural Law, and whilst I do not disagree with Natural Law, I disagree with that particular interpretation. Nevertheless, this is not exactly relevant to this debate.'Do you take the bible literal to its fullest?'No, I take the Bible to be a good reference book with which we can take advice and guidance, but I do not take it literally.'To start off, you argue that god exists in ACTUAL reality?What do you fully mean by this?'When I argue that God exists in actual reality, I argue that God actually exists in reality. The reason I said 'actual' is to differentiate my view from the anti-realist view that God exists but only exists in the mind. I argue that there is a God and this God exists externally to ourselves and is an independent being.'cannot be said to that of god because there have been no scientific explanations, correct experimentations, that proves god to be real.'I agree; trying to empirically look for God is foolish because empiricism can only detect physical entities. But just because something cannot be empirically observed it does not mean that it does not exist. My opponent goes on to present the omnipotence 'paradox', I will respond to the so-called paradox using the definitions of God's characteristics that I laid out in round 1. As the paradox of the stone is what my opponent discusses in most detail, I will refute it in particular.Before I start, remember the definition of omnipotence I presented in round 1:'The ability to do anything that is logically possible to do'Returning to the dilemma posed in the paradox of the stone:'Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.'The answer would be no. But does this contradict God's omnipotence?No it does not. This is because the object we are addressing is 'a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it', I argue that God's omnipotence would not necessitate his ability to create such a stone because the existence of the stone is NOT logically possible.A stone that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being has logically impossible existence, because the ability to lift anything is entailed by the essence of omnipotence. Therefore it would not be logically possible to create the stone. As God's omnipotence only allows him to do logically possible things, the fact that God would be unable to create the stone does not contradict his omnipotence . Therefore the paradox of the stone is mere sophistry and is not a true paradox.The same rebuttal can be applied to all the other supposed omnipotence paradoxes. My opponent goes on to prove that evolution is a correct theory and that the earth is >6000 years old. However, this is all irrelevant because:1) Evolution does not imply that God does not exist2) God's existence is not disproved by the age of the earth being >6000 years old.3) As a theist, I do not deny evolution or the scientific age of the earth.My opponent makes the false assumption that the advocacy of God's existence is interdependent with the rejection of evolution and the belief that the earth is 6000 years old.'Surely this is a factor into proving God is not real or even slightly showing that the LIKELY-HOOD of God is even less of a chance.'Why is it a factor at all? Why does the fact that the earth is older than 6000 years old disprove God or even reduce the probability of him existing? I thank my opponent for continuing to participate in the debate, and I will now pass it over to him so he can reply to my points (including, if he wishes, my initial arguments for the existence of God).(1) http://rationalwiki.org...;(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...;