Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

Thanks for the welcome and advice. I'll stick with this debate, we'll see how well I do. I'll define "probably" as "more likely than not" if that's okay with you, as we cannot empirically test God and thus can't prove anything about him beyond reasonable doubt. Your points: 1) Myths serve two functions. First, they explain things when science is unavailable. Second, they teach humans how to better themselves. Take Thor - he hurled his hammer against the frost giants in battle, which caused thunder and lightning (1st function), and protected humankind, acting as a role model (2nd function). Myths help people survive, so "religious" genes persist and spread through the population. We don't need God to explain religion, but this does raise an interesting question... Q: If God created the world with the intent that his creations would know and worship him, why aren't all animals religious? 2) People tell stories of gods. There are two possible reasons. First, the stories are true. Second, the stories are myths created for one/both of the reasons in Point 1. Occam's Razor favors the second option, as it doesn't assume the existence of gods. So in order to refute this we must ask another question... Q: If myths are true, why do we have no physical evidence? 3) Just because people are changed by something doesn't mean it really happened. I could get really stoned and hallucinate a pink rabbit who tells me to quit drugs and become a Mormon. The pink rabbit changed my life, but that doesn't make him real. 4) Again, this depends on the reliability of witness testimony. People can be easily fooled, so testimony enough is not sufficient to prove God's existence. 5) The KCA is flawed. Statement A: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." This has not been proven, and is actually violated by certain phenomena in Quantum Mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). The Uncertainty Principle requires constant flux. If the Laws of Physics are not free to vary, meaning that the Uncertainty Principle applied at the Big Bang singularity as well, then a fluctuation would occur and destabilize the singularity, thus causing the Big Bang. Statement B: "The Universe began to exist". This becomes harder to determine when Time itself is fuzzy. Space-time is warped around singularities, making it impossible to distinguish time from height, width or length. Thus the universe may not have had a technical "beginning" until well after it existed, making the concept meaningless. Conclusion C: "Therefore, the Universe had a cause". This is no longer true if A and/or B are incorrect. Even so, it doesn't mean God was the cause. That is an extra assumption we'd be making. Q: If the universe had no cause and didn't begin, how could God have created it? 6) If God exists in the mind but not reality, that doesn't mean there is a greater being that exists in both. It could just mean that such a being is impossible outside of abstract thought. 7) Those arguments are easy to dispute, and have been disputed many times. Watchmaker: Richard Dawkins refutes this using a mousetrap instead. What is a mouse trap now could have once been a tie clip (can't hold back the trap mechanism), and the tie clip could have been a doorstop (no trap mechanism). Organisms change their "function" during the course of Evolution. Humans have a lot of traits that aren't actually necessary for our function, or that impede it. For example: - Men have nipples. Nipples cost nothing to grow, so there was never a reason for them to be gender-specific. - Humans have an appendix, even though it does nothing but cause problems. This makes sense if it's leftover from our grass-eating ancestors. - Human eyes have the light receptors at the back, even though the eye would work better with them at the front. This makes sense if one of our ancestors was born with back-to-front eyes, and then one of their descendants evolved a tunnel through the center of them. - Junk DNA. 98% of our genome doesn't do anything ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Removing it has no effect on the organism. This makes sense if adaptations were acquired through trial and error, or if God was a monkey on a typewriter. Q: Why would God give his creations useless traits that prove Evolution and cast doubt upon Intelligent Design? Irreducible complexity: Some think that Natural Selection screens out traits that don't do anything. This is incorrect. Natural Selection only removes organisms with traits that prevent it from successfully breeding. It's just common sense, as only organisms that breed can pass on traits to the next generation. Not developing lungs until the age of 2 would be screened out (stops organism breeding), but having useless nipples would not (has no effect on breeding). And beneficial traits such as opposable thumbs would make the organism more successful than its peers, and thus spread through the gene pool. Fine-tuning: This argument reverses cause and effect. Conditions aren't suitable so life can exist, life is suited because of the conditions. This is Natural Selection. Organisms that cannot survive or compete in their environment die out, while those suited to their environment thrive and pass on their genes. Also, there are some features of the universe that aren't strictly necessary for life. The Weak Nuclear Force breaks atomic nuclei apart during radioactive decay, but this happens over such a long time interval that it's irrelevant to life. We also don't need such a big universe to support life on one little planet. Q: If creating humans was God's reason for making the world, why would he include redundant features? 8) This is the same as arguments 3 and 4. Just because those people claim they met God doesn't mean he actually existed. I won't address the specific instances where the Bible contradicts archaeological records, etc, but I will raise one last question. Q: If God intervened in human history, why do we have no evidence except for religious texts (which can't be verified and so aren't infallible)? IN SUMMARY: 1) If God wanted to be worshiped by his creations, why are humans the only religious animals? 2 and 8) If God intervened in human history, why do we have no evidence that he did so? 5) If the universe did not definitely have a cause and beginning, how could God have created it? 7a) If God created humans so they could worship him, why did he give them traits that don't support this purpose? 7c) And why did he give the universe features that don't support life? The principle of Occam's Razor says that when multiple explanations for something exist, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually correct. I stated in my challenge that there is no evidence or need for God's existence, and have hopefully shown that in my argument. If I am correct, then God is an unnecessary assumption and Occam's Razor says that he probably doesn't exist.