It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Con points out that I am arguing for the Christian God. Yes, because of my own personal convictions I believe in the Christian God but in these two arguments I am only arguing for in essence a creator. Whether doctrinal statements of the Christian faith are un-ethical or not is not up for debate. Saying that God is un-ethical does not disprove his existence. Con said in the first round that he would be specifically arguing for the Christian God, so that is the God that I will be arguing against. If I can show that such a God more likely does not exist, then I have won the debate. Pro specifically only argued for a general designer but the debate is about the existence of the Christian God. This Christian God is supposedly omnibenevolent, yet supports scapegoating in the case of the atonement. This is a contradiction so such a God is not very likely to exist. Here is another example of the justice of the God of the bible:Exodus 34:5-7 New International Version (NIV) 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation. .I will not try to disprove the existence of a creator because theists have defined him in such a way that it is impossible to disprove such a being. Lets say that I told you that there is an elephant in the room. You then look around and tell me that no such elephant exists in the room. I then tell you that this elephant is invisible and can move through matter and does not make any noise. You cannot disprove an invisible elephant in the same way that you cannot disprove an invisible person who made the universe. What I can do is show that it is more probable that such a being does not exist by showing that a non-design explanation is more probable. But, anything that is outside of time must also be changeless because if something is not changeless then we will see an infinite amount of times this "thing" changed. That sounds reasonable. Keep in mind that we could also have a change-less non-design cause of the universe too. Therefore, if this being must exist outside of time and must also be changeless it must also be immaterial because material things are always changing at least on the atomical and molecular levels. Just because matter changes if it is inside time does not mean that it cannot exist outside of time. Maybe when it is outside time it is frozen. Maybe matter cannot exist outside the universe for some other reason but pro has not identified it. This being must also be personal because personhood is implied by the timelessness and immaterialness of the cause. Simply because, again, the only thing that can possess these qualities are abstract objects or unembodied minds. Pro's problem here is that he is exclusively looking inside this universe for causes of the universe. So that is why pro is assuming minds and ideas are the only candidates for what caused our universe because those are things that pro knows about. What if the cause of the universe is entirely foreign to anything in our universe or anything we experience in our daily lives? Pro next assumes the existence of a mind, and assumes that a mind can exist outside the body. Pro also assumes that an unembodied mind is timeless, and changeless. My mind if it exists is changing all the time as my personality and character changes. My thoughts occur within time. My opponent seems to think that the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed is an argument against God when actually it is an argument for God because if energy cannot be created than how do we have it now if not because a timeless, spaceless, personal, and powerful being made it? If energy cannot be created, when what makes anybody think that God can create it? It makes no sense. The problem here is that if there is no time outside the universe then how could the universe be created in the first place? Everything in a time-less place is changeless. and if universes began popping out of nothing for whatever reason, then this is a state of change and violates timelessness. This is a problem for both our arguments. This is a puzzle for me either because I don't know enough about cosmology or because we don't know about the origin of the universe yet. The problem is that his entire argument is resting on the case that more than one big bang occurred. All I am saying here is that pro is calculating the odds of a universe expanding with the right initial conditions without knowing how many universes have undergone a big bang. If we found a star that we have never seen before, would we assume it is the only one of its kind? No, because the conditions that were met to create that star could have been met elsewhere at least once. The same holds true for the universe. For the longest time, people assumed that the sun was the only star, and there was the only solar system and now we know that they were wrong. Lets not make that same mistake and assume that this is the only universe. Now, even if there was more than one big bang, this claim Stephen Hawkings made would apply to the first big bang that happens, because if the rate of the universe expansion was different the universe would have "collapsed into a fireball" making it impossible for any other big bangs to occur. According to your reasoning it would be impossible for this universe to expand again. What about another? However, my opponent must show how living organisms can come from nonliving material. Scientists are working on that but we really don't know how living organisms were created. If I am required to show that abiogenesis is true, then pro must show that God made the first life-form. For the longest time people thought that God was responsible for the creation of humanity. Now we know that humans actually evolved. If the complexity of humanity and life can be directly explained without design then why are we assuming that life itself could not be created without design? So pro cannot show that God made the first life-form. The arguments I gave are not based upon gaps in our scientific knowledge, but rather on what the best of scientific knowledge does tell us. Actually all your examples of God's design are in areas we know very little about e. g. the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Pro makes a lot of assumptions when trying to demonstrate design. So yes, you are using the god of the gaps argument. With all these unknowns then how do we know that it is more probably that there is no designer? We know this because whenever there has been a question about our origins that we have been able to explain scientifically it has been explained without design, defeating the design argument in these area. So non-design explanations have a stronger predictive power than design explanation when we are trying to explain the origins of everything. This is why it is more likely that there is no God, however we cannot prove it either way.