Atheism is more probable than Theism

Thank you for your timely response. I apologize for the delay. Refutation of con's opening arguments My opponent chooses the teleological argument as his sole weapon. As we are going to see, it has never been a popular argument—and for good reasons. I shall show why this fails to meet the burden of proof and fails to prove that God exists. A. The teleological argument My opponent states, “Let’s consider the odds of winning the lottery. The chances of winning the lottery are so small that all participants with six matching numbers are considered extremely lucky. Now let’s assume that somebody won the lottery’s grand prize three times in a row. Most people would immediately accuse said person of cheating or fraud.” Richard Carrier in his 2006 book Why I am Not a Christian thoroughly refutes such a statement: “Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is--let's say, a one in a billion chance--but on how often the game is played. In other words, if a billion people play, and the odds of winning are one in a billion, it is actually highly probable that someone will win the lottery. Now, if the game is played only once, and the only ticket sold just happens to be the winner, then you might get suspicious. And if the game was played a billion times, and each time only one ticket was sold and yet every single time that ticket happened to be the winner, then you would be quite certain someone was cheating. For nothing else could explain such a remarkable fact. Therefore, the only way life could arise by accident (i.e. without God arranging it) is if there were countless more failed tries than actual successes. After all, if the lottery was played by a billion people and yet only one of them won, that would surely be a mere accident, not evidence of cheating. So the only way this lottery could be won by accident is if it was played countless times and only one ticket won. To carry the analogy over, the only way life could arise by accident is if the universe tried countless times and only very rarely succeeded. Lo and behold, we observe that is exactly what happened: the universe has been mixing chemicals for over twelve billion years in over a billion-trillion star systems. That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident--because life can only arise by accident in a universe as large and old as ours. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct.” (Carrier, 2006a) So, are there more failed tries than actual successes? Let's do some math. As of 1999, NASA reported that the Hubble Space Telescope found over 150 BILLION galaxies in the observable universe. (Georgia, 2002) ScienceBlogs (partners with National Geographic) reported in 2012 that there are at least 306 extrasolar planets found that year alone (Ethan, 2010). So it certainly does appear that there are more tries than successes. Richard Carrier notes in his interview: “Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that. It also does no good to say such a random accidental universe is improbable, because the convenient existence of a marvelously “super-omni” god is just as improbable. Either way you are assuming some amazing luck. Which leaves the evidence. And the evidence is just way more probable if there’s no god. Thus, we’re forced to choose between which lucky accident it was, and the evidence confirms the one and not the other." (Carrier, 2012b). Other problems with the argument are thus: The analogical reasoning used is weak Even if we accept the analogy, the argument cannot show: The designer has infinite attributes The designer is faultless There is only one designer That the designer(s) is (are) still alive (Tobin, 2006). The analogical reasoning used in the teleological argument is weak and not convincing. In conclusion, my opponent's arguments have failed. I am out of time and will defend my opening statements in the next round. Bibliography Carrier, R. (2012, January 3a). Richard Carrier Interview. (TheBestSchools, Interviewer) Retrieved from: http://freethoughtblogs.com... Carrier, R. (2006b). Why I am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith. United States of America: CreateSpace Publishers. Ethan, S. (2010, 17 June).How many planets are out there? First Results from Kepler! Retrieved from ScienceBlogs Georgia & Veronica. (2002, November 27). How many galaxies are there? Retrieved from NASA: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... Tobin, P. (2009).The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus. United States of America: AuthorsOnline Publishers. Retrieved from: http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...