Gods non existence more likely true than false

I am extremely excited for this debate!My opponent brings up a extremely good question: If God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnivolent, then why does suffering for no apparent reason exist in this world? I will respond to why suffering exists and how God and suffering both co-exist from a philosophical/logical point of view.Not only this but I will provide other arguments that show why God is more likely to exist than to not exist.Next round I will directly attack my opponents arguments, but for now I will just build my own.Suffering Argument using Augustinian Philosophy (11th Cent.)Before I begin, let me make a few distinctions:Definitions:Evil: the privation of good (privatio bono) In other words, evil is not an entity in and of itself and its origin is free will.Moral Evil: human originated i.e.. murder, genocide, cheating, etc.Natural Evil: independent of human actions i.e.. disease, earthquakes, storms, etc.Free will: the ability and freedom to make choices on one's own accord Philosophical Principles:Cause of Suffering: the root cause of suffering in this world is evilThe Fact of Finitude: the theory that there are a limited forms of existencePrinciple of Plenitude: most rich and valuable universe is one exemplifying every possible kind of existence The Idea of a Perfect WorldAugustine points out the fact that the world is inherently good. In order for all the laws of physics, the laws of nature, and free will to exist, the world we live in must be inherently good. In other words, the Fact of Finitude and the Principle of Plenitude brings forth the idea that the world we live is actually perfect. Think about, can you (the reader or my opponent) create a better world than the one we exist in? A world that is governed my natural laws and can be explained through science as well as grants humans free will?Moral EvilThen if the world is inherently good, then why does evil (which is the cause of suffering) exist? Well, that is because of human free will. Humans choose to not do good. Humans are responsible for most of the suffering that exists in the world. From choosing to lie about homework, to rape, to genocide, these acts are committed by humans and humans alone. God, gives us full capability to not commit evil, for He did create us inherently good. In other worlds, the existence of free will means the responsibility of suffering and moral evil is ours, not God's. Moreover, many causes of suffering is when humans try to test the limits of the physical world. For example, we were never made to fly, but we have designed and built airplanes and rockets. When those fail and people die or become injured, that is because of human error, not God's error. Natural EvilThe reason that natural evil exists in this world is because of the laws of the physical world. In order for this world to "work" or exist, and for us to exist, there have to be laws to govern them. The same rains that brings us much needed water for crops also brings storms. So it is not as if God is punishing us for our sins, or created an evil world where suffering exists for truly no reason; He, in fact, created an inherently good–Augustine world argue that it is actually perfect–world. ImpactsThis argument has two majour impacts.1. It explains how a God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnivolent can co-exist with suffering and evil.2. Alleviates the responsibility and cause of suffering from God. The Ontological ArgumentDefinitions:Ontos = “being” - to existArgument this is a line of thought that leads to God existing. God is:“…that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (St. Anselm, 11th cent.)“…the most perfect being” (Descartes, 17th cent.)-In other terms, humans cannot think of something more perfect and bigger than God. Existence is a perfection.-The purist for of existence is perfection. A God that does not exist is not perfect.-If God doesn't exist, then God cannot be perfect. Thus the most perfect being must necessarily exist.-in other terms, in order for existence to literally exist then the purist form of that existence must exist and is necessary for the rest of of existence to exist. This purist form of existence, which is perfect, is God.Therefore, God is more likely to exist than not. The Cosmological Argument using Thomas Aquinas Philosophy (13th Cent.)Now lets examine the world again. Notice that everything is contingent upon each other. It's existence can be explained through something else's exists. In its basic form, this is the idea that matter and energy is neither destroyed nor created–it just changes form. Therefore, we can logically trace everything in the cosmos back to an "unmovable mover" (this theory actually traces back to Aristotle's philosophy) that created this world. Simply put, because this world and everything that exists is contingent, then a non-contingent being must exist. Furthermore, that means this non-contingent being must be explained in and of itself, leading to the following characteristics put forth my Thomas Aquinas: Thomas Aquinas’ “five proofs”: 1.God is “first mover” (Unmoved mover) 2.God is “first cause” (Causation) 3.God is necessarily self-existent (Contingency) 4.God is the standard of all goodness (Degree of Good) 5.God is the intelligent designer of the universe (Teleological Argument)ImpactThe nature of the cosmos itself brings us to the conclusion that God is more likely to exist than not Blaise Pascal's Gamble (17th Cent.)Here is a mathematically reason to believe why God is more likely to exist or not–something more tangible than, "I just feel it my heart." We have two choices: to believe or not believe Only two possibilities: God exists or does not exist 2x2=4 possible outcomes: Believe in a god that exists; be rewarded in afterlife Believe in a god that does not exist; suffer no consequences Do not believe in a god that does not exist; suffer no consequences Do not believe in a god that does exist; be punished in the afterlife Therefore, mathematically, its better to live life believing in God's existence because you are either rewarded or receive no consequence (and possibly still live happily) than to not believe in God's existence and be punished or receive no consequenceImpactThis is not necessarily a proof for God's existence, but it provides a reason to believe in God's existence.Conclusion God can co-exist with suffering and evil because evil is caused by human, or because of the Fact of Finitude and the Principle of Plenitude. The very existence of existence means that God is more likely to exist The nature of the Cosmos leads to the existence of a God being more likely Pascal's Gamble provides a reason to believe in a God other than "I can feel it in my heart" These are my arguments in their most basic form. I would like my opponent to not direct his arguments at this conclusion, but at my arguments above.If you have any questions about my points/arguments be feel to ask in the comments section. I would be more than happy to answer them.I am using various readings of Augustinian Philosophy, Thomas Aquinas's Philosophy, Aristotelian Philosophy, and Blaise Pascal.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponents arguments!Bon chance!