God is unlikely to exist

Thank you, CON, for creating a rebuttal against my arguments that honestly reflects your beliefs. However, your beliefs cannot be expressed as proof without substantial evidence.Before I refute your arguments and provide additional ones, I would like to generally address your rebuttal: This is an illogical rebuttal hinged solely on extremely unlikely assumptions drawn from no empirically testable or conclusive evidence, only common religious assertions that are dependent on one’s faith. FYI, faith is not the most reliable method of establishment, science and logic is. Instead of stating that “It is reasonable to believe...” or “Both Creation and Evolution were manifested by an eternal mastermind...” or “If you understand God properly, it makes sense...”, you should provide substantial evidence to support these unjustified claims. Semantic ploy is also not a strong argument against logic, e.g. “The word ‘Omnipotent’ is sometimes misunderstood with All-Powerful/Raw Power,” as it violates the prerequisites of this debate (R1). I challenge CON to provide indisputable evidence to support all of your claims. Rebuttals:CON: God is one of the explanations for the universe's existence. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency is susceptible to reductio ad absurdum of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Let p be the conjunction of all contingent truths. If p has an explanation, say q, then q will itself be a contingent truth, and hence a conjunct of p. But then q will end up explaining itself, which is absurd. This can be formulated precisely as follows:11. No necessary proposition explains a contingent proposition. 12. No contingent proposition explains itself.13. If a proposition explains a conjunction, it explains every conjunct.14. A proposition q only explains a proposition p if q is true.15. There is a Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF) which is the conjunction of all true contingent propositions, perhaps with logical redundancies removed, and the BCCF is contingent.16. Suppose the Principle of Sufficient Reason holds.17. Then, the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact has an explanation, q. (From 15 and 16)18. The proposition q is not necessary. (From 11 and 15 and as the conjunction of true contingent propositions is contingent.)19. Therefore, q is a contingent true proposition. (From 14 and 18.)20. Thus, q is a conjunct in the BCCF. (From 15 and 19.)21. Thus, q explains itself. (From 13, 15, 17, and 19)22. But q does not explain itself. (From 12 and 19.)23. Thus, q does and does not explain itself, which is absurd. 24. Hence, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false.Essentially, this rebuttal is logically proving that God as in explanation does not explain itself, thus the Principle of Sufficient Reason is invalid. CON: God could be one of the causes of the universe by causing the Big Bang.The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument that follows the modus ponens structure of contemporary logic. However, in order to avoid the conclusion of this argument, "The universe has a cause," either premise 1, 2, or the Conclusion has to be disproved or susceptible to reasonable doubt. Aforementioned in my argument, "Creationism is scientifically unsupported," the Conclusion is subject to inquiry. To quote my original argument against the Kalām Cosmological Argument, something you chose to ignore:"The Big Bang Theory is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause.” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The foundation of this principle states:ΔEΔt ≈ h/2πMeaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang."You still have not refuted this argument, and you are choosing to ignore scientific evidence. Both the Leibniz and Kalām Cosmological Arguments are not valid in a debate exposed to contemporary science, and, unless you can provide indisputable scientific evidence that supports the likelihood of creationism opposed to Quantum Fluctuations, the argument is not substantial.CON: The existence of morality is a likable proof for God's existence.Again, you are ignoring my arguments regarding these subjects! I specifically addressed the Moral Argument in my first argument, and I quote:"I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God."Although humans may "know in the back of our head" that murder, lying, stealing, rape, etc. is wrong, it still occurs. Whether or not we "know" its wrong is irrelevant. The fact that both evil and morality exists in society means that morality is not objective or universal. Moral values are only relative to one's perception of morality, not something appointed by a supernatural being. CON: The scientific statements in the Qur'ran are likable proof for the existence of God, hence the time period of its revelation.As you have not provided any of these actual statements, I have nothing to refute... Arguments:Argument from Parsimony (using Occam's Razor)1. The Principle of Parsimony, contending that entities should not be multiplied needlessly, articulates that the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.2. Natural theories (non-supernatural) adequately explain the development of religion and beliefs in Gods.3. Supernatural theories are superfluous to explaining already established scientific phenomenon.4. Thus, supernatural theories further complicate a logically and scientifically verified theory.5. From 1, 4: Hence, natural theories are the most likely theories.Inductive "Praxeological" Argument1. An omnipotent and omniscient entity would not be subject to needs, wants, or desires, as these concepts are contingently human.2. Creating the universe would require incentive.3. Incentive is a need, want, or desire.4. The universe exist. 5. Thus, an Omnipotent entity does not exist.Argument from Ordered Complexity1. Ordered complexity requires an explanation.2. God is a being of ordered complexity.3. Thus, God requires an explanation.4. God does not and could not have an explanation (e.g., the result of the evolutionary process or the work of a higher God)5. Thus, God does not exist.Argument from Emotional Incapability1. Emotions have both physiological and cognitive components, making emotions dependent on the immediate environment (1).2. If God is a supernatural or metaphysical entity, it is external from any environment.3. Hence, God is unable to exhibit emotions such as love, goodness, mercy, etc.; God is emotionally incapable.4. Without the ability to express emotion, God's authority has no purpose, relevance, or overall effect on humanity.5. It is unlikely for God to exist without purpose.6. Thus, it is unlikely for God to exist.Sources:(1): http://psychology.about.com...