It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

I was hoping this debate would focus on the plausibility that a God designed the universe over the plausibility that it happened by chance, rather than old testament ethics. Regardless I will refute whatever arguments con presents. I am not positive on what is the argument regarding the Exodus 34:5-7. I think con is trying to show that God does not have a good sense of justice. While con hasn't proven that this is an injustice, I will defend it regardless. The same type of language is used in Exodus 20:5-6 "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. " (ESV) Both these passages are just saying human experience confirms that immoral behavior on the part of parents results in suffering for their children and grandchildren. This is one of the grievous aspects of sin, that it harms others besides the sinner himself. But this general principle is qualified in two ways: First, it applies only to "those who hate me" i. e. , to those who persist in unbelief as enemies of God. The cycle of sin and suffering can be broken through repentance. Second, the suffering comes to "the third and the fourth generation", while God shows "steadfast love" to those who love them. When interpreting these passages we must: be careful we do not isolate verses out of context, understand how the original audience would have read the passage, and examine other text that relate to the verse(s) in question. After we do all this we see no reason to believe God has a bad sense of justice and no reason to believe he is not omnibenevolent. "I will not try to disprove the existence of a creator because theists have defined him in such a way that it is impossible to disprove such a being. " That is not true, all you have to do is show that it is more probable that God does not exist. The elephant example is just silly. First off there is no reason to believe the elephant exist because it is not necessary and does not serve a purpose, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless we could expect other things. First this is highly hypothetical because elephants are not invisible and they do make noise when they move. Furthermore, we could simply put a heat sensor in the room and could see the elephant if it indeed existed because elephants body gives off heat. I'm guessing my opponent would say something to the extent of well this elephant does not give off heat. Well than why call it an elephant if you are going to rob it of all its properties. Even if it was impossible to disprove the elephant in the room, it does not in any way influence my original arguments for the existence of God because I am arguing God exist necessarily as the best reason for the origin of the universe and the fine tuning of the original state. The elephant does not exist necessarily. "Just because matter changes if it is inside time does not mean that it cannot exist outside of time. " This is logically incoherent because the universe includes all matter, space, time and energy. Therefore, to say that matter can exist outside of time (the universe) it is a contradiction. "What if the cause of the universe is entirely foreign to anything in our universe or anything we experience in our daily lives? " I am proposing that this personal, timeless, changeless, immaterial, moral being is unlike anything in our universe. "My mind if it exists is changing all the time as my personality and character changes. My thoughts occur within time. " I do not see how this affects any of my claims. Please explain and I will be more than happy to discuss this. "If energy cannot be created, when what makes anybody think that God can create it? It makes no sense. " As I already stated this being that created the universe would necessarily be more powerful than what we could imagine. I believe that this is more plausible than the universe coming from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. "This is a problem for both our arguments. This is a puzzle for me either because I don't know enough about cosmology or because we don't know about the origin of the universe yet. " So you are saying essentially (correct me if I'm wrong. I do not want to put words in your mouth) that you really don't know what created the universe because we don't have enough evidence to decide. If this is the case and you don't give any evidence to show that it is more probable that God does not exist than I have won the debate because I think I did give good reasons to believe God exists and con has dropped much of my original two arguments. "All I am saying here is that pro is calculating the odds of a universe expanding with the right initial conditions without knowing how many universes have undergone a big bang. " Con seems to be arguing that a multiverse exist even though there has been no scientific evidence to suggest one could even possibly exist. "For the longest time, people assumed that the sun was the only star, and there was the only solar system and now we know that they were wrong. Lets not make that same mistake and assume that this is the only universe" Just because people were wrong then does not mean my evidences are wrong now, or even that it is probable my evidences are wrong now. "Scientists are working on that but we really don't know how living organisms were created. If I am required to show that abiogenesis is true, then pro must show that God made the first life-form. " You don't have to prove it is true. Just that it is more probable. I showed that it is more probable that God made the first living organism than that it came from non living material. "For the longest time people thought that God was responsible for the creation of humanity. Now we know that humans actually evolved. If the complexity of humanity and life can be directly explained without design then why are we assuming that life itself could not be created without design? " For the purpose of this debate I concede the evolutionary process. I already said I have no problem with it happening. But evolution does not say how nonliving material came to make living material which is the real matter (no pun intended) at hand. "Actually all your examples of God's design are in areas we know very little about e. g. the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. " I did not say we had tremendous knowledge about any of these topics. I said I am using the best scientific knowledge we have about it. I already explained why it is not the God of the gaps argument but I will repost it in the next round if you want me to. As I said earlier I would defend two basic contentions: That there is good reason to believe God exist and not sufficiently good reasons to believe God does not exist. Con has given up on most of my original two arguments and started talking a lot about old testament ethics. While this is okay with me, because it's even easier to defend, I was hoping for a different focus of the debate. Either way we have not heard a reason why God does not exist and Con has not been able to refute either of my first two arguments. Thank you for your time.