Atheism is more probable than Theism

Argument from reasonCon doesn't back up his rebuttals here." If you show yourself and help people whenever they need it, they become dependent on you. If you neglect the people when they need it, they reject you. This is very true, as it is seen in every government with social programs that people become dependent on, yet when the government does nothing, people become angry. Just food for thought. Well, this analogy may work if I brought up the problem of evil as an argument. As a God showing someone he exists doesn't mean people will become dependant on God. If the government shows people there exists social programs this doesn't make people dependent upon them. In many religions doesn't God want to be worshipped? Won't he do things for people if they ask? Such as Christianity the scriptures say to cast your cares on the Lord and he will take care of you [1][2]Ontological Argument I don't really understand what his Hercules argument is trying to prove. It really doesn't even dent the Ontological Argument at all. My Hercules argument is trying to prove that there existed a greatest maximal warrior. As it's along the same reasoning of God.But actually, the most maximal being would be one that could not be elminated by anyone. You can't refute that. A maximal being that is the strongest would be the maximal being, eliminating the ad infintium argument. The greatest maximal warrior would be one that could not be eliminated by anyone. You can't refute that. As if I claim an island is the greatest maximal thing in existence, if you conceive or a bigger island I can use the same argument. I did conceive of something greater, but now con is basically saying "You can't do that". My "2 is better than 1 argument" hasn't been addressed.The rest of what Con says was already refuted in my opening statement.This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary.Otherwise put, then, the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible."In this argument, existence is presented jointly of one God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has got the residence of existence. It's the equivalent to "if X isn't doesn't exist, then X isn't God". It doesn't show that we have any entities that actually fit this definition.""Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions."This argument also relies on the assertion that if you cannot imagine something better than God, he exists. Con hasn't proved that something exists if you cannot imagine something better.Kalam Alexander Vilenkin's models are used by many theists to show the necessity of God, including William Lane Craig. The one that is usually used, is one of his newest models. He created a model with two other scientists in 2003 that William Craig mentions in his argument. I don't think WLC or theists use a model where the universe comes into existence without any God to prove God.We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundaryThis is a red herring. As the argument is God was not needed for the universe to come into existence. Not that the universe is eternal.Now from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncausedI've refuted the first premise of the Kalam. Which Con has not objected to. If you're going to say God is uncaused why not skip a step an say the universe was uncaused?changelessThis one is interesting. As if the cause was changeless wouldn't it still be creating universes? Why would it be changeless?immaterialThis assumes that the only material that exists is in the universe. It assumes there's not some unknown material outside the universeMy opponent still has not proved why atheism is more probable than theism. I believe I have. *The argument from reason hasn't been refuted*Con didn't refute the evidence that shows the universe needed no God to come into existence*I have shown that the fine tuning argument proves atheism is more probable than theism.By the way, Futurama is awesome! [1]1 Peter 5:7[2]Psalm 55:22