God is unlikely to exist

I am assuming CON has either depleted his available time (three days) or CON has no logical arguments advocating the likelihood of God's existence that fulfill scientific criteria. Thus, the only option available at my expense is to utilize this opportunity to administer more robust arguments to further solidify the logistics of my contention. Arguments:The Aggregate of Qualities Argument1. If God exists, God must necessarily possess all of several remarkable qualities (including supreme goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, ultimate creator, purpose giver).2. Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity.3. Therefore, it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities.4. There is an infinitesimal chance that any one entity (given the almost infinite number of entities in the Universe) might possess the combination of even some two of these qualities, let alone all of them.5. In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates so very closely.6. Therefore, as there is statistically such an infinitesimal chance of any entity possessing, as God would have to do, all God's essential qualities in combination it can be said for all practical and statistical purposes that God does not exist or is HIGHLY unlikely to exist.The Man and God Comprehension Gulf Argument1. Man is finite (in time, space, and power etc).2. God, if he exists, is infinite (in time, space, and power etc).3. Therefore, mankind cannot possibly recognize God or even know that God exists.The 'God Has No Explanatory Value' Argument1. God, if he exists, must be the ultimate being and provide the answer to all our ultimate questions - otherwise he is not really God.2. Yet, even supposing as a hypothesis that God exists, the questions that God was supposed to finally answer still remain (though in some cases God is substituted in the question for the Universe).3. Therefore, hypothesising God's existence is only superfluously adding an extra stage to such problems and has no real explanatory value.4. Therefore, according to Logic (Principle of Parsimony - 'that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity') we should not postulate God's existence and there is no adequate reason to suppose that God exists.5. Therefore, we should suppose that God does not exist. The 'This Is Not The Best Possible World' Argument1. God, if he exists, must be omnipotent, supremely good, and our ultimate creator.2. Therefore, an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.4. Therefore, as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist. The Universal Uncertainty Argument1. An uncertain God is a contradiction in terms.2. Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty.3. Therefore, even an entity with all God's other qualities cannot have the final quality of certain knowledge concerning its own relationship to the Universe as a whole.4. Therefore, God cannot exist because even any potential God cannot know for sure that it is God. The 'Some Of God's Defining Qualities Cannot Exist' Argument1. God must have certain characteristic qualities (such as providing purpose to life), otherwise he would not be God.2. But it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God.3. Therefore, since some of God's essential qualities (such as being the purpose provider to life) cannot possibly exist in any entity, God cannot exist.I hope that CON can refute these, and my aforementioned arguments, logically and scientifically without forfeiting. Good luck.