God probably exists

religion? Response to Part 1: is not an argument based in CON"s necessary position, but a preemptive DEFENSE to a "god of the gaps argument" which is only useful in the debate, if and only AFTER (by Con"s rules) I make that claim (but I couldn"t have, it"s the opening round). In short, it may be a good defense to god of the gaps-except, it"s his OPENER, you can"t attack PRO"S arguments PRIOR to them being offered as that violates his own rules. On that note, I move that this is stricken as "irrelevant" and because it does NOT move his argument forward, but attacks a windmill-it"s a Don Quixote argument, against a phantom. He"s supposed to show the improbability of GOD not the improbability of an argument nobody made " Response to Part 2: Here again CON is arguing about "religion" and falsely so. He means "Abrahamic Religion." Now CON did define "God" but he did NOT define "religion." And religion if we use ANY of his offered and acceptable sources, dictionaries-etc. Many religions have NO GODS, so to argue under the presumption that they do, as though Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism Sikhism, etc". don"t exist? IT is over a billion people we"re talking about here-and at least 3 of the 8 major world religions (that LACK "GOD"). Further-in the case of Abrahamic religions, no they were NOT created as you stated. By any valid claim, Christianity was invented not by Monarchs, but by an Emperor or a nobody (ie either Paul or Constantine, not a Monarch, Rome was a REPUBLIC, not a Monarchy) Joseph Atwell has very thoroughly argued that the Jesus character was invented by the Romans to get control of the Jewish god. http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com... Nor does his claim, true OR false add anything to the CON side of the debateno mention of "God?" Or "probability" or "existence OF God?" Con is talking about unrelated issues, none of which indicate a LOW probability of God. Even if a religion is created in utter duplicity-that says nothing about OTHER RELIGIONS, or OTHER gods". Even if you disprove every single "GOD" theory, it still doesn"t disprove GOD as a concept, it just proves THESE GODS (the ones you might bring up and falsify) wrong. So not really sure what else to say on this unrelated information that is arguably false, AND outside the parameters of "God Probably does NOT exist" you never addressed that claim, much less disputed its probability here. SO this whole argument fails on its motive-which is OUTSIDE the debate topic. Response to Transition: Confucianism was created to address the problems OF China: Particularly social strife. The entire belief revolves around 5 relationships, one of them is the Emperor and the People. But the simple fact that there are FOUR MORE, prove it"s a religion NOT created for the purpose you claim. But one created to achieve social harmony in the most populated empire that ever was. https://en.wikipedia.org... Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?: Response to Part 1: This arguably proves the God of the bible a liar, but that doesn"t mean he"s not god by CON"s definition". Further, maybe Jesus is fake, and Yhvh real-if that"s the case, there"s STILL a god and a reason jesus is WRONG (because he"s not god, therefore not all knowing and prone to major mistakes!). Now again, Con has said "we"re talking about Christianity" however-Con then uses a very ambiguous and general term that goes beyond not only Christianity, but THEISM itself-as many religions LACK GODS. This will not do and we cannot just magically make "religion" synonymous with "theism" much less with "Christianity." IF Con wishes to make an argument about "Christianity" then Con should define "Religion" AS Christianity or use the word that fits.. one like "Christianity." But Con did not, nor did he DEFINE "religion" so I have-again by the standards Con gave: Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moral code governing theconduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreedupon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs andpractices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. " from http://dictionary.reference.com... Now I have defined it and this definition now stays, having priority-I would expect Con to adjust his arguments to mean what the words indicate. Religion is much more than Christianity or theism. And as a result, invalidates the claims carelessly made about Christianity masquerading as a representative of all "religion." The nature of the request was clear-that if he says "theism" that"s the one he"s talking about. But religion is not synonymous with THEISM. Theism is a SUBSET of religion. And now it"s defined by me for the rest of the debate, as is custom on this site and in debate. Now further-one may not pray to atheism itself.. but one doesn"t pray to Chrisitianity either. Many atheists ARE religious Con. This means they pray to many things, just not gods. So by Con"s argument, let"s make another prayer to all the atheist objects of worship (Statues of Buddha, mandalas, etc". anything but gods) does Con indicate these ATHEIST objects will perform better reactions to the prayers? I bet not. Which means, we"re even on that issue-because atheist sources give nothing more than theist sources, ie prayer to ANYTHING is equally worthless to prayer to GODS by Con"s reasoning. If I pray, and it"s NOT to a god, but to something atheist (lacking god, the very definition of the word, from the Greek, "atheos" or "Without God") then it should yield a better result than a prayer to God. At the very least, we see they are equally probable on this claim. Response to Part 2: Con said: "Think about DNA for a second" by the formation of DNA." Actually if you keep up with Quantum Mechanics, predeterminism contradicts "natural selection" and much of evolution. It suggests that it was all programmed and all in there, from the singularity (big bang) forward-this is related to Sam Harris" argument about free will. That"s his point (and mine) that it DOESN"T EXIST, precisely because of DNA". That everything is already predisposed, predetermined" just not by a god. But Con is again arguing the wrong points-Con has said "God" is the "creator of the Universe." So the creator, who begins it-sparking the singularity-doesn"t have to do anything after that. And even if he does nothing, he"s STILL the creator. Are you suggesting an all powerful being, the "ruler of the Universe" couldn"t program stuff to run on its own under his laws, the entropy he provided, etc"" ? You must be. But that"s invalid. Evolution doesn"t ADDRESS the singularity-it only addresses life on THIS planet" which is irrelevant to creation which happened at least 14 billion years PRIOR to this planet" Con said "Creator of the Universe" and that implies that evolution could certainly be PART OF his creation" there"s no contradiction here nor even a sliver of attack toward the PRO position here. Nobody is arguing about evolution, just the probability of god. This issue is about "probability" of GOD as (creator and ruler of universe) NOT creationism vs. evolutionism. Ie wrong argument Con. Response to Part 3: Again this is a strawman argument of religion. There"s only one religion with a "bible" and while they may differ across sects" that doesn"t mean other religions have "bibles." For starters, bible means "library." SOME religions have a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible." But not all, so that"s a strawman, and one that is again not helpful as he"s arguing ONE god over another". Again, many religions have ZERO gods, ZERO bibles" they may have ONE book, but a book is not a library. A bible Is a library, in this case, what 66 or 73 books? Take Zen Buddhism-they have NO DOCTRINE. It"s based on the Diamond and Heart Sutras (so 2 books, but 2 aint a library" and") but all sutras are rejected BY Zen, so they arguably have NO book, not even ONE, much less a whole bunch, a "library" or "Bible." Further since there are (and were) numerous pagan gods". But in Chrsitianity there are 1-3 depending on your position. Jehovah"s Witnesses for example believe Jesus is NOT a god. Catholics however, from a quick look at the inside of a church, or the average Catholic"s necklace, believe in MANY gods or at least "demigods." That said, since pagans have MORE gods, under a monotheist debate, they have much MORE chance of having the WRONG one" because even if they have the right one, pagans (including you and me") have more wrong gods than a potential right one. Further, many pagan beliefs include a God that fits your claim "Creator and Ruler of Universe." So your argument if anything only helped mine-you made it clear that you think Pagan gods are more probable than the Christian God. Further " then why"d they lose the fight? Why isn"t Mithra still worshipped? Good argument for pagan gods, but poor argument for Con"s Position" Response to Part 4: Strawman fallacy of religion again, a term controlled by MY (the first) definition given in the debate for that word" which includes again, Confucianism. Confucianism was designed EXACTLY FOR social function. All I see is arguments against religion in general that don"t pertain to probability of God nor to creation or ruling of the Universe.