The possibility of a Christian God existing is highly improbable

Christian God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.Note : This is not theism but Christianity, this is to say that God takes an active roll in the lives of everyone in existence. Theism meaning that a supreme being created the universe. So we are discussing the possibility of a Christian God existing, not a Theistic God. Improbable - This is dealing in terms of probability. What makes one religion right?Remember we are working with odds and probability. So the first thing we must look at is how many religions exist in the world or have existed."Best estimates put the number around four thousand two hundred (4,200) with 12 being classified as major religions" [1] The issue this brings up is what makes Christianity any different than all of these other religions. Remember the resolution is that "The Christian God existing is improbable" . Just from basic mathematics we can tell that it is highly unlikely. As I have already stated we are dealing in terms of probability. According to the best estimates available, the probability of a Christian God existing is 1/4200. For my Adversary to meat his BOP and show my resolution as false, he must show that every other religion in the world is false. The Christian God can not co exist with any other God, due to the nature of his claims. Therefore every other religion must be false in order for the Christian God to exist. Just from the topic at hand we can see this is highly improbable. 1/4200 is in favor of the resolution that is presented . Remember any argument presented by Con claiming that a deity explains why morals exist, why the universe began, or even why things operate they do is irrelevant. I can fill in any deity in place of that claim (x). Allah gives us morals, Thor gives us morals, Odin gives us morals. My adversary must show that the Christian God is the one true God and that he in fact exists for him to meet his BOP. Occam's Razor. There is no need for a Christian God. We understand how and why the world operates, and the origins of life. Occam's Razor is a great guideline for scientific reasoning. It claims in short"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." [2]This is a basic but essential theory in science. If you have two competing theories. Take for example lifeWe know life was created by the big bang. [3] This is verified and proven to be a true statement because we can psychically see CMBR [4]. Essential this is empirical evidence. That explains the origins of life. We then have the theory of evolution to explain and why we evolved from a single cell organism [5]. How by chance, adaption, and progress we evolved form a single cell organism, to homosapien, to humans. We now also know there is no need for a God in order for the Big Bang to have occurred. Lawrence Krauss has showed in his book "A Universe from Nothing", how matter can come into existence from nothing. Krauss makes the argument there are 3 types of universes which are flat, open , and closed universes. We are in a flat universe, meaning we are infinite in spacial extend. There is also something special about a flat universe as well. It is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Due to this fact it gives rise to quantum fluctuations, which can produce energy and matter from nothing . [6] Everything in life is explained by science. The issue with adding a God into the equation is that it is unnecessary. Again operating under odds of probability the resolution is upheld. This is the same argument we can use for santa claus. For Santa Claus to exist, there would have to be a need for him. Since we know parents give their children gifts and claim that it is santa claus, there is no need for a santa claus. Since this is an empirical fact, the probability of a santa calus existing is very low or highly improbable. This does not change the fact that people can believe in santa claus, but when you remove the need for him and have a rational explanation for why presents get under trees, it reduces the possibility of him actually existing by a great amount. The same logic can be used when we look at a Theistic God, and in this case the Christian God. Example[1] In order to prove there is a God, there has to be a need for a God[2] There is no need for a God in order to explain the mechanics within the universe[3] Therefore there is probably no God. For Con to meet his resolution, he must provide empirical evidence to support a Christian God and must also show that God is a necessity. The Case from MoralityThis use to be a huge point in explaining why we need a God. Essentially if there is a objective standard for morality that exists outside of they physical realm, it explains why things are right and wrong. There can be a few truths that explain this[1] Everything is permissible and there is no such thing as objective morality. This is essentially subjective morality. That there is no right or wrong and that everything is permissible. This is where I tend to lean. Everything is permissible depending on culture or the framework of a society. Meaning if you were born in (x - time period), your view on what is right or wrong would change. 100 years ago porn ws detestable, but now it is common. Why is that? Because we as a society have changed our perspective and culture. There can be objective truths withing society, but there is no such thing as objective truth. (1) Murder in America is objectively wrong(2) Murder in a third world tribe is commonWhat makes one right and the other wrong? We would be judging the other tribe by our principles. More often that not, this leads people to bring up the fact that God is the objective standard which is faulty. This is where I believe anything is permissible. if God is the objective standard for all good and evil, it invokes the euthyphro dilemma. This essentially says"(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God"s will.(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God"s will.Therefore:(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God"s moral goodness or to worship him.(6) There are reasons both to care about God"s moral goodness and to worship him.Therefore:(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.Therefore:(8) Divine command theory is false." [7] This is essentially a double edge sword. If what God will is objective, what would happen if God commanded rape to be moral? Then there would be a dilemma. Another question this begs is the POE (Problem of Evil)(a)If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.(b)If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.(c)If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.(d)If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.(e)Evil exists.(f)If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, (g)or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.(e)Therefore, God doesn't exist. [8]In ClosingThe most logical conclusion is that the probability of a God existing is very low or highly improbable. I have shown there is no need for a God in order to explain the cause of the universe, whey there is no need for a God in order to explain how the universe works, and also how saying a God does exist adds more questions than answers. For Con to negate my resolution and meet his own BOP he must show how and why Christianity is the one true religion while also showing that the Christian God exists. He must show the need for a God in order to explain the universe, and then answer all of the questions a God brings. The most logical explanation is that there is no need for a God. We know this from verifiable and empirical evidence. Because there is no need for a God, there is probably no God. For the Christian God to exist, he must not just have created the universe but be apart of the worlds affairs. In dealing of odds of probability and when comparing Christianity to other religions, it is in fact very improbable that a Christian God does exist. Sources[1] http://www.examiner.com...[2] http://math.ucr.edu...[3] http://science.nasa.gov...[4] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[5] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...[6] http://www.icr.org...[7] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...