God Most Likely Does Not Exist

I enjoyed the opportunity to debate this topic with Pro. Since this is the last round, and no rules exist for this round, I will be fair and address Pro's initial case before concluding. BoPThe assertion of "God exists" is not present here. The only claim that is relevant is the title of this debate, which I am aiming to negate. I can negate it just by showing that God has a 50% likelihood or more of existing, and I have no proposition to affirm. If I can do this, I win. Nature of God- Evidence for the existence of a deity is all that can be argued on either side, so for Pro to assert that no evidence exists and use that as an argument is nothing more than an assertion. I could say "evidence exists" and use that as an argument, but it would be just as nonsensical. - "If God is beyond Space and Time then he his beyond our existence of universe and that means he does not exist" -ProNon sequitur. Being outside of the universe does not imply non-existence, and it's an invalid conclusion to draw from no premises. - The fallibility of humans does not have anything to do with God's existence. Humans may or may not be right, but whether they are has nothing to do with philosophizing. By Pro's logic, we can't trust anything humans have said in history. Omnipotence Paradox- The argument of God not being bound by logic was never responded to by Pro. He posted a link, but this doesn't count as his own argument. Thus, it is dropped and conceded. - Limitation of one's power is definitely a possibility. Pro's response is unclear here, but from what I can derive from his arguments it seems that the initial contention was simply restated, as proven with this line: "But if its impossible for him to create anything he cannot do then that's a limitation on his part. " As I said before, God could attempt a task that he cannot do by limiting his power once creating the task in order to be unable to do it. This has already been refuted. Problem of EvilMoral evil- The ability for one to choose their own actions and make their own decisions presumes the existence of free will. The lack of free will would mean that individuals would not be able to make these decisions, but they so have the ability to choose. So yes, free will exists. - The existence of free will means one *can* interfere with others' choices, and that they can use their agency to do so. Pro asserts that if free will exists, then we should let criminals commit crime. This is ridiculous - I can use my free will to interfere with their harmful choices. We should seek to keep people from committing harmful actions, and we already have the power to prevent such actions from taking place. The existence of agency allows me to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong, without God forcing me to make the decisions he wants me to make. The latter scenario restricts freedom, while the former doesn't. Thus, the ability to have more of a choice would be more of a moral good, and Pro has not countered why such freedom is worse than no free will. OmniscienceAgain, Pro never shows why free will and an omniscient deity cannot exist. He states that a deity would know all of one's actions, but never explains why this negates free will. Thus I dismiss this argument. Natural Evil- A transcendent deity would have a standard of morality far above those of humans. Having him care about our perceptions of suffering does not mean he must succumb to our views. For example, a parent may punish a child for reasons of them needing to learn a lesson and grow from theibased. t mistakes. The child may have subjective feelings of suffering, but the parent does not give in to the child because of that. The same is somewhat true with God and morality: suffering may exist to better us for the future and help us to be good to others because of our understanding of what suffering is. This is the Christian view of such circumstances. - Pro dropped my response about the afterlife. Extend it. HellThe existence of such a place doesn't necessarily mean that God is not all-good. If God is all-good, he must also be a just God, so that a standard of morality is upheld. When laws are broken, punishments are set. This is to put evil at bay so that good may exist unharmed. ConclusionIn this debate I have provided valid arguments for the likely existence of God, and have knocked down the opposing arguments. Pro's contentions are also full of logically fallacies, such as non sequiturs, red herrings, bare assertions, shifting the burden of proof, and the negative proof fallacy. Thus, I rest my case. Even if our arguments are equal, I still win based on the resolution claiming the likely non-existence of God.