Atheism is more probable than Theism

I will do my best to refute them and present my own arguments. ===Pro’s Case=== A. Weak Atheism First of all, we have to establish that Weak Atheism is not relevant to the resolution. If I understand correctly, Weak Atheists do not assert that there’s no such thing as a “god”, they simply choose not to believe or follow theistic practices that may be associated with belief in a particular conception of “god”, such as going to church [1]. This is not relevant to the resolution because it’s a negative claim; since there is no assertion, there’s no “likelihood” involved. If we substitute the definition of Weak Atheism into the resolution, we end up with “disbelief is more likely than the existence of one or any ‘gods’”, which doesn’t make sense. For the resolution to stand, Pro must prove that strong Atheism, or the existence of no gods/deities, is more probable than theism. As an extension of Weak Atheism, Pro advocates Presumption of Atheism. If I understand correctly, this is an argument about burden of proof; Pro states that since “god”, is a being that defies accepted physical laws or common sense (an “extraordinary claim”), we should immediately assume that no such being exists unless “extraordinary evidence”. I think the problem with this argument is the overall vagueness of it. For starters, what exactly suffices as “extraordinary evidence”? Consider the following questions- Is the current amount of evidence for the ice age sufficiently “extraordinary”? What about the big bang? Is there sufficient “extraordinary evidence” for that? If not, does that mean that we should assume that these events did not take place? Additionally, what are “accepted physical laws/common sense”? Is there a universal standard for “common sense”? Pro seems to agree that people have different notions regarding “common sense”; he argues that if he had said “Last night, God called me to be His final prophet on earth and wants all men to follow my words. ”, it would be an extraordinary claim to the theist because it conflicts with the pre-established ideas that the theist might have about god. Doesn’t that imply that there is no standard idea of what constitutes as a “common sense” (and ergo “extraordinary claims” as well) since people have different pre-established doctrines? If so, than wouldn’t that imply that the “presumption of atheism” argument only works on atheists? In order for my opponent to proceed with this framework, he must first address the questions I have raised in this round. Until then, burden of proof is to be shared. B. Strong Atheism If I understand correctly, my opponent has accepted my definition of “theism”. Therefore his argument falls because it’s based on the premise that “god” is perfectly just- the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god is just one concept of a supreme deity. For example, in the Old Testament (of the Bible) Yahweh himself admits to being selfish. Additionally, he had a “chosen people”, the Israelites, implying he wasn’t “perfectly just” and had his preferences. ===Con’s Case=== I will only be presenting one argument this round. I’m not aware if Pro will allow new arguments to be brought up in future rounds, but I hope he will, as my brain appears to be unable to formulate coherent arguments right now. A. Teleological Argument 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. The reason that a three time lottery winner would fall under suspicion is that the sheer odds of winning the lottery three times in a row by random chance are so slim that almost any other explanation is more probable. Manipulation from an outside source is much more probable than something occurring from random chance. Now, let’s consider the chances of the earth being suitable for human life. As Pro himself admits, the odds are probably infinitely times slimmer than winning the lottery three times in a row. Since science would suggest that most things have a cause, it is reasonable to assume that there is some external guiding force that shaped the world into something inhabitable for humans. Therefore, it is probable that a god or gods exist. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...