Atheism is more Probable than Theism

Thank you for your swift response. I shall point out that my opponent violated the structure of the debate. Round 2 is opening statements and round 3 was to begin rebuttals. I. Evidential ArgumentsA. Problem of EvilMy opponent's attempt at refuting the problem of evil is a strawman. [1.1A] confusion of two kinds of beginning and causation My opponent's argument is a strawman. If you were to birth a child that will grow up to be someone like Adolf Hitler, you may have caused it, though you are not morally responsible. However, if you were able to prevent the murder, then you would be morally responsible for it. If God is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent. [1.2A] negation of evil in the grand scheme My opponent acknowledged the existence of pointless and horrendous evil. However, he states that it's nothing because it will all be eliminated in the next world. I say that it would not be redundant to prevent evil because it assumes that the ultimate end of evil is good. For example, imagine that a doctor amputates a patient's leg, an "evil", in order to prevent gangrene from spreading throughout the patient's body, "the ultimate end", which is "good." Yet this example fails because the doctor is limited; unlike God who is unlimitted. A better example would be the same doctor having the same paitent having a cure for the gangrene without having to amputate it, decides do amputate it anyway. We would call such a doctor "mad", why should we then call "God" "good"? [1]B. The Argument from Demographics [2A] What incentive for Caring?My opponent is correct in regards that we are not referring to a specific deity. If God were all-loving, then he would have a desire to have a relationship with the whole of mankind. So, we come with this syllogism:Premise 1: If God were to exist, then he would desire a relationship with all of mankind.Premise 2: However, God does not have a relationship with the whole of mankindConclusion: Therefore, it is probable that God does not exist. So, the incentive for caring is that God, if omnibenevolent, would desire a relationship with the whole of mankind. In order to have a relationship with the whole of mankind, he needs to have revealed himself in such a way to be able to have that relationship he desires. Sidebar note (this point is irrelavent as it is from a specific religion): This is exactly what Christianity teaches: God desires a relationship with mankind. [2] [2A] Incidental and IrrelaventSee above. II. Evidential ArgumentsA. Incoherence of God[3.1A] Partial IncomprehensibilityMy opponent fails to understand the gist of the argument. He claims that there is no common concensus on the conception of God. My opponent is correct (and this can be used as another argument in favour of atheism, not going to go into detail here). This, however, does not address the argument. I defined God as a diety that has the specific attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. [3.2A] Omniscience does not include knowledge of future My opponent claims that God does not know the future. However, this goes against the definition of omniscience. Omniscience is the quality of having all knowledge [3]. Consequently, God knows all things possible and actual. In standard theology, God ordained whatever will come to pass according to his well (Eph. 1:11).Premise 1: If God knows everything, it follows that he knows the future (indeed, if you don't know the future, you don't know everything)Premise 2: God knows everything (by definition of omniscient);Conclusion: God knows the future.III. Refuting my opponent's arguments for God's ExistenceA. Modal Cosmological ArgumentI will respond to this argument in the next round due to time constraints and debate structure. B. Argument from Beauty I do not see how the fact that we can understand beauty means that there is a God. It simply does not follow. By contrast, the Neanderthals, although not human, did seem to have an understanding of art and music. [4 and 5] ______________________________________________________________________________1. Tobin, P. (2004) "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity." 2. http://www.ucg.org...;3. http://carm.org...;4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...5. http://discovermagazine.com...;