Atheism is more probable than Theism.

That being said, I will reply to your arguments first, and then add my arguments. Contention 1 I will not reply to your objection to the free will argument until you phrase it in your own words. (Our two quotations differ in intent. Mine was to give evidence, yours is to make an argument) As to your opposition to the fall of man affecting all of creation, I said that it is the result of an ongoing punishment. (Paraphrase) I meant that it is then the CONSEQUENCE visited upon the children of Adam, rather than the punishment itself being dealt out to Adam"s descendents. This is because the punishment upon Adam was so great that the consequence were far-reaching. I acknowledge that my phrasing and wording in the previous round led directly to this seeming contradiction. That was my fault. (See [1]) (Consequences and punishments are different) Contention 2: My apologies for the vagueness. I will expand on them. I gave historical evidence in the above round, but I failed to explain it. I will do so here. From the evidence given, we know that monotheism led to polytheism. This brings us to the question (and this is an argument for theism), How did man get such a concept? Is it the result of a "god spot"? Well, despite years of searching for such, none has been found. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is no god spot. From this it is easy to see that there is only one other possibility. This other possibility is that there really was a (singular) theo who revealed himself to man. This is actually quite easy to understand. However, what about all the different gods? (This being all the different monotheistic gods) It is clear that there is actually not much difference between Allah and Yahweh. So the question that must be asked is "which is the perversion of which? " (I"m not wanting to offend anyone here) Not, "Can we discard theo because there seems to be a contradiction? " I hope this explains it. Contention 3 I do not understand how incomprehensible and indescribable are contradictory to each other. Neither do I see how omnipotence and free will can contradict. I absolutely do not understand you here. I"m sorry (I searched up the definitions, I don"t find any contradictions). Please revise and give explanations that does not contradict my previous argument, since you don"t dispute that. So now I will go to arguments for God. Besides the one above. I will only use one other argument because you"ll only have one other round to refute me. (My bad. ) Therefore I"ll have two arguments. The presence of evil [2] If there is evil, then there must be some sort of moral code by which Theo is being compared to. Now we know that moral codes are not material, and if they were just the result of chemical reactions, you would have no basis on which to raise the argument of the problem of evil. How do we know what is evil and what is not? There is an innate moral rule in each of us. That is an observation. Do we feel guilt when we violate this code? Yes we do. This brings us to the only logical conclusion of a higher morality. The only higher morality that can logically exist is the Judeo-Christian God. Now that I"m running out of time, I"ll pass back to you. 1. . http://www.apologeticspress.org... 2. . http://www.str.org...