Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

I have repeatedly stated that it is impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence. We can only determine which is more likely. The available evidence gives two options: 1. God exists. 2. God does not exist. As God's existence is an unnecessary assumption to explain the evidence, O.R. suggests that option 1 is the more likely. You are incorrect in saying/implying that I have to make a case against God's existence. I just have to show that his existence is: 1. Unnecessary to explain the evidence. AND 2. Not supported by the evidence. O.R. does the rest for me. Also, notice that comparing God to a platypus won't work as the existence of the latter is supported by physical evidence. That is my position, no matter how weak you may consider it. The existence of God must be required and/or supported in at least ONE case in order for you to win this debate. If God exists, finding one example should be easy. Points: 1) I have done further research on the appendix. The previous belief that it serves no function whatsoever is under scrutiny, though by no means disproved. The appendix certainly doesn't fulfill ALL of its possible functions in humans, so it is still an example of a vestigial trait. 2) Okay, non-coding DNA was not a valid example. Though it can be removed with no effect to the organism, it still serves to protect the genome. 3) Men have nipples. Nipples serve no function in male mammals, and only persist because there is no evolutionary reason for them to be sex-specific. http://en.wikipedia.org... If God designed humans, why would he give men a trait that didn't benefit them? Either God exists and shares our sense of aesthetic appeal, or he doesn't exist and this is a by-product of random, unguided mutation and selection. Let's review the criteria for discernment: 1. God must be necessary to explain this phenomenon. This is incorrect, as Evolution works with or without God. OR 2. God must be supported by the evidence. This is also incorrect, as the existence of vestigial traits doesn't prove that God made them. God fails both criteria, so O.R. says he probably doesn't exist. 4) Saying "God knows more than we do, so we shouldn't question him" is an argument from ignorance fallacy. My mother knows more than I do about certain subjects, but I still question her if I think she's incorrect or hasn't explained herself properly. God, being omnipotent, is capable of proving his existence more directly if he chooses to. So either God is hiding from us, or he doesn't exist. As the first explanation is neither required nor supported, O.R. favors the second one. Conclusion: I've laid out a case for why it is more likely that God doesn't exist than that he does. It may be total bunk, but that's the best I can do. I would like to remind you that disproving my position is easy. You just have to do one of the following: 1. Present a real-world phenomenon where the existence of God is required to explain it. OR 2. Present a piece of real-world evidence that supports the existence of God. If you can't do either of those, then Occam's Razor suggests that the existence of God is an unnecessary assumption and should therefore be discarded. Or, of course, you could dispute Occam's Razor itself. That would technically be a 3rd option.