God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Much thanks to Pro. Before I start this round to defend my case that was put forth in the second round, I want to make a note on the burden of proof.BoPThis has been a misunderstanding for Pro. He's stated that I am the one putting forth the proposition that God exists, but that is not the case here. The resolution states, "God most likely does not exist", with Pro on the affirmative side. By asserting this proposition, Pro automatically has some of the BoP, if not all. I am simply negating this proposition, not the other way around. In order to negate the resolution I only need to show that the claim that God's existence is unlikely is false. I can do this by proving that there is a 50-50 chance God exists, or anything higher that, as long as it opposes the notion that there is an unlikelihood of a deity's presence.Shoving the BoP onto theists 100% of the time is unfair, especially when the opposing side has made the first claim. It is also fallacious, as I described before. There really is no reason for Con, the one who is negating, to have the full BoP, when that invalidates the whole norms of debate.Beginning of the UniverseThe God of the Gaps fallacy is one that some theists have made before, but I certainly have not committed it here. Pro accuses me of making this fallacy when I haven't at all. Here is why the "Goddidit" mentality does not apply to my case: I have adequately shown why God is a probable cause for the existence of the universe in that I have applied his attributes to those of a universal creator.Requirements for a universal cause:-The cause must be all-powerful (omnipotent)-The cause must be outside space and time, as the creator of both-The cause must be transcendent (beyond human perception)The God described in the first round matches all of these requirements, meaning that there *is* a likelihood that the cause is the deity described. Pro has yet to challenge my logic on this, besides saying that the cause could be anything. The issue for this is that Pro hasn't shown as any viable evidence to believe that such a cause is something other than God. Which means that you automatically buy my claim over Pro's. There were a couple hypotheses proposed earlier, but I'll show why those are faulty below.Multiple Universe TheoryThere is many problems with this hypothesis, of which I have listed:1) There is no evidence of the multiple universe theory being true. It is complete speculation.2) An infinite regression of universes is illogical. Each of those universes needs a cause themselves, and there's no reason to believe that one could actually create another entire universe, let alone one like ours which is governed by laws. There is also no reason to believe that there are a hundred other universes as opposed to a million or a billion.3) The principle of Occam's Razor states that when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires the fewest assumptions. It is much simpler to believe that a God created the universe as opposed to an infinite number of universes in circulation, infinitely spawning new universes which spawn new ones and exist regardless of any laws. All other hypotheses follow the same line of logic: there is no evidence for them. God, on the contrary, has lots of evidence for him, even if we just consider the beginning of the universe argument.Pro also suggested that the universe could create itself out of nothing, but never advances this argument. All he posts is a bunch of links, which I'm not going to take the time to go surf through. Pro needs to make his own argument and not try to piggyback off someone else's ideas. What caused God?The deity that Christians believe in is an uncaused God, which is not bound by its own creations including the cause-effect principle. Such a deity is outside these things, and the law of causality began when God began to create.Fine-Tuned UniverseThe rolling dice analogy doesn't necessarily show that our existence isn't due to design, nor does any of Pro's arguments, because Pro is looking at it the wrong way. Be assumes that the universe is an accident, but this is not what the anthropic principle teaches at all. There is still massive improbability that needs to be accounted for, and you cannot explain an improbability of this magnitude by simply pointing to our presence on the scene to ponder it. The anthropic principle does not say that it is remarkable that life turned up on our planet given the billions of the stars and other galaxies in the universe. Instead, it says that the formation of the universe with all its galaxies had to be done a certain way in order for it to contain life at all. This also answers Pro's question, "why does the universe have so many galaxies when man has a special place in its creation?" The universe was supposed to be designed the way it was in order for man to exist.A designed universe doesn't necessarily have to be one in which man is all there is. The same logic of "why is the universe so big" can be applied in reverse: in a universe where man was all that was, why isn't the universe bigger? There's no need to keep man from exploring their looming universe through methods of technology and science.Pro assumes that design implies that humans must be perfectly created. There is no reason to assert such. In fact, the perfect creation of humans begs the question of why such humans would be created in the first place. While this may be puzzling, the Christian view holds that man was given weakness by God to become stronger and grow throughout their trials.God & MoralityPro's response has several flaws in it. In my case, I spoke about how humans have a sense of morality and animals do not. If evolution and natural processes affect both humans and chimps, then shouldn't chimps have a sense of morality too? Why don't they act for the benefit of their species if that's how morality came about for life?There are many circumstances in which evolutionary processes cannot explain being morally good. My opponent stated that "we act for the betterment of others because we all rely on eachother for goods and services and by tending to not hurt eachother we increase the likely hood of us surviving and passing our gens to the next generation." This line of reasoning doesn't apply to a lot of examples. Let's say I'm on a bus, and I want to give up my seat to a stranger. Are my genes passed on? No. Am I relying on the goods and services of that person? No, I am asking for nothing in return. Am I doing such an act so the stranger won't hurt me? No, there's no reason the person would hurt me either way. This explanation doesn't work, because there are so many acts of altruism that surpass the evolutionary realm of reason. It is a wonder that humans possess morality at all and don't act like their closely related animals.There is also no reason for me to want to help a sick person who will bring no benefit to me. If someone is ill, and they are 1) not related to me, 2) not possessive of a reward of goods and services that would benefit me if I helped them, and 3) not there to hurt me if I don't help them, then according to Pro's logic, there is no reason why people should lend support to such a person. Yet people still do it all the time; charities spring up, and figures like Mother Theresa dedicate their lives to the poor. When applying Occam's Razor, it makes a lot more sense for a God who is the source of morality and an objective moral standard to exist as opposed to some complex evolutionary process that may or may not have a bearing on morality, which Pro has not yet been able to explain.