It is probable god exists

Firstly for The Ontological Argument, my opponent does not seem to begin to grasp the actual rebuttal. Lets try the rebuttal a little differently. Firstly, let me define No Maximality: This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. So onto a counter sylligism. 1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists. 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world. 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists. 6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists. Ok so we have now at the very least 2 syllogism that apparently prove the opposite of each other. There must be a problem. At best we can say it is 50/50 right now?But, again as Mackie says this is not the case. "However, he would not be justified in claiming even that it is a toss-up. For one thing, suspense of judgement, not accepting the premiss either of the ontological argument or of the counter-argument, is another option. For another, if we are to choose between these premisses, in default of any other reason, we must ask which is the more modest and which the more extravagant, which can be accused of multiplying entities beyond what is necessary. And surely the more extravagant is that which asserts that maximal greatness is realized in some possible world. For this one carries with it the requirement that a maximally excellent being--and, indeed, a maximally great one--should exist in every possible world, whereas the rival premiss that no-maximality is realized in some possible world, still allows maximal excellence to be realized in some possible worlds though not in others. The latter, then, is less restrictive, less extravagant, and so on very general grounds the more acceptable." for the educational purposes of my opponent this is a variation of Occam's razor, as Occam's razor implies taking the response the requires the least possible assumptions. So, by time my syllogism was done, we were down to this the odds of this beings existence being 50/50,not probable, but now after this fact, it would appear this argument leaves god less likely then likely. My opponent also completely missed the point of my rebuttal of Kalams as well. I demonstrated that the argument was the fallacy of composition. Then also went on to point out that, that if the original syllogism were correct, that get this, god does not have to be that cause. I gave specific alternate causes. I gave reasons why they were more likely, and he did not even bother to address them. Which brings me to the last point this argument blatantly commits the fallacy of appeal to a singular cause. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument This argument is a basic god of the gaps fallacy. It tries to assert god at the end. Yes contingent beings require and explanation and any contingent fact requires one as well. I grant that. The problem is that the argument would be required to commit the fallacy of composition to get to god. Why is this one might ask? Well let me explain. The Universe is the set of all contingent beings and all contingent facts. With that said, It could just be brute fact that there would be a set of contingent beings. Therefore, I am saying there is no reason to assess that something needs to be the overall cause. It could be an overall loop. To assert god is to attempt to slip him into a area of knowledge that we don't have. When scientists don't know something, they go under the assumption it is brute fact, until something is actually demonstrated. The argument also fails to address that even if this cause was noncontingent, why couldn't this cause be a universe of non-contingent beings. If we are going to be asserting random things that we have no idea can exist. Why not assert this? There are many other assertions we can make. If he wants to pick god, he is merely committing the fallacy of appeal to a singular cause. Which is especially problematic when we use our inductive reasoning to assess the causes of things that tend to be more complex. Whenever we have something that is complex, science does not have a tendency to find singular causes but a string of events or causes that created these complex items. Sorry as we actually start to understand these arguments and look at them in regards to things we already know, they fall quite easily. Now for this idea of background evidence. What is this background evidence he is referring to? He is clearly asserting this. Has he shown it? Nope, so it can not be used. As a matter of fact this was a not so cleverly disguised way of attempting to shift the burden of proof, by default he should be forfeiting all 7 points. Lets look at some background evidence against god: All signs that we know of morality point to the elimination of child suffering and death as the right thing to do. God is defined as a maximally great being so he would be able to do the right thing, and should do the right thing. Yet he does not. All that one needs to ask to determine if you think god is probable is take a look at this evidence and ask yourself, how likely do you think it is that stopping child suffering and death is not the right thing to do? I brought up another piece earlier, the complex an item is the more likely it has multiple causes. Yet, we are suppose to assume a appeal to a singular cause for the most complex set of things we know, the universe? How probable is this. We also have evidence that gods are concepts of men that evolve. The gods that my opponent believes in has most likely evolved from multiple gods such as El and Ba'al.( The Evolution of God- Robert Writght and A History of God- Karen Armstrong) How likely do you think it is that man 4000 years ago happened to just all of a sudden get this right? A study by Luke Muehlhauser on January 28, 2010 in Philosophy of Religion 101 shows Also note that, among these top 99 philosophy departments, here is the breakdown of belief in god: Non-believers: 78.1% Believers: 14.5% http://www.answersingenesis.org... Only 7% of the national academy of science believe in god. Now, lets look at this in terms of background evidence. We have people who study these fields and are experts saying god is improbable. How likely is it that the evidence is probable for god to exist on one of the most important topics, the existence of god and yet all these people miss it. Yes, it is possible, but the question is, is it probable. Your answer should be no. Now remember, Contradiction has agreed that he can sum up his argument in the last round but can not add additional arguments or forfeit. It is agreed upon in the comments section. If he fails to do so he forfeits. Now, I know since he already did one thing that makes him forfeit, he should already lose all points, but I will not take that for granted. So, if he does add an argument you are forced to say he forfeits. All comments attributed to Stenger come from God: The failed Hypothesis