There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

Phew, last one. This is tiring. "If scientists ever allow God as a possible explanation of the data they are observing then, according to your definition, that causes them to cease to be practicing science." God is by every sense of the definition, a hypothesis. This does not mean that God cannot be a possible explanation of data, it is just that it will hold no ground without experimentation, trial and error, and peer review research. God in this field lacks all of those, and this is what I mean when I speak of probability. The more evidence- and I leave it to the scientific community to tackle that issue in this respect- the more likely, and the less evidence the least likely. I consider anyone who treats God as any more than a hypothesis as lacking credibility, as they are not holding up to the standards of science and covering general truths of the operation of general laws by the use of the scientific method. "God is the creator of all that science is discovering. More and more scientists are embracing the inevitable conclusion that a study of creation supports, even proves, the existence of God." When you say "more and more," I am assuming you mean a significantly increasing number of scientists, in which I would need some statistics that show that scientists are embracing the existence of God in terms of debating it in the scientific community, publishing peer reviewed research papers, releasing findings from experiments or theoretical physics proofs. (note: which is much different than discussing it in their personal lives, as people do not often set such a standards in regard to their religion). "There are some scientists that are so dead set on avoiding this inevitability that they refuse to allow God into the picture no matter what the data says….They are so desperate to avoid this obvious conclusion that they invent other causes that are equally unprovable: Multiverses?!" Actually, because there is no evidence of a multiverse, scientists consider the multiverse a hypothesis, and therefore hold it at the same regard as the belief in God. The multiverse is gaining ground in the scientific community because there are possible ways to observe it. But otherwise, I do concede to the fact that the multiverse as of right now is equally unprovable, but that is already a given considering the scientific community considers it a hypothesis, and therefore are not acting as if it is some kind of substitute for God. The bottom line is, "we don't know," but to then substitute ignorance with God is not a better alternative. "Scientists pushed to the edge of reason will believe that there is, for the lack of a better name, a "universe creation machine". This machine not only has an infinite amount of energy to draw on but it is sufficiently more advanced in that it can create individual universes with the ability to create life by random unguided uncaused accidental means…That begs the question, "What made THAT machine? The meta-metaverse?"" As I said before, we have already witnessed the fact that the universe itself can distort time at a natural pattern, so therefore it is much more probable that the universe itself can be timeless. Considering this theory is based on observational facts, this theory alone is more probable than the hypothesis of God, which is based on a nonexistent foundation. To define science as discovering the work of God (if I am allowed to paraphrase here), is to outright assume his existence without regard to evidence. "Let's say for the sake of this debate, that God was created. If so then he must have been created by a more supreme meta-God who was created by a more supreme meta-meta-God, etc. infinity. That takes nothing away from the fact that the universe was created by our God. Do you see how futile it is to even place a probability on the existence of God?" This would take away from the fact that the universe was created by our God because this would mean "our God" would be a logical fallacy, which would make any observer doubt His existence. The universe being timeless is not a logical fallacy as the universe has been observed to distort time. God however has not been observed, and add to the fact that his existence would twist logic in this manner, the probability that an entity can break this logical fallacy is low enough to assume He DOES NOT exist.