It is probable that God exists

So let's imagine a vegan girl. She works for Greenpeace and gardens. Out of the set of all existing girls, The likelihood that she is vegan is 0. 04%, That she works for Greenpeace 0. 001%, And that she gardens 0. 25%. The likelihood that this girl exists is then 0. 04 x 0. 001 x 0. 25, Which the Google calculator tells me is: 0. 00001%. Now let's imagine the cause of the Big Bang. It had to be sufficiently powerful to effect it. This is all I have claimed it must be. PRO claims certain other things are necessary of this cause. For them it has to have agency, It has to transcend matter, Time, And space. It has to be uncaused. Each of these add another condition to our calculation. We would have to times the probability of each together to come to our final percentage of how like this cause -- god -- is. By necessity, It is going to be less probable that just posing that this cause was just sufficiently powerful enough to effect it. PRO then must claim that each of these conditions were necessary for the Big Bang to occur. 1) The cause has to have agency. Here, They have misconstrued Lane Craig's argument. He was answering the question: if God is external, How could he cause a temporal event? His answer was that God could voluntarily act and produce a temporal event. So, Using this argument to try and prove that the cause of the Big Bang had agency is definitely question begging; it already presupposes that God exists. Furthermore, Temporal processes not only can, But do happen without agency. Agency does not cause time. Time passes regardless of it. 2) PRO claims that this cause must transcend time, Matter, And space. I argued that such claims are beyond scientific observability. The universe did not begin 13. 8 billion years ago: the observable universe did. What preceded it still existed and may have behaved differently than the particles and waves in our universe that usually behave under natural laws. I do not understand how if these causes were spatio-temporal that this would prevent them from effecting the Big Bang. Therefore, These three conditions are unnecessary for the Big Bang to occur. We don't need them. 3) PRO claims that the cause must be uncaused. This is a category mistake; just because everything in the universe is caused, Does not necessitate that the entire universe is caused. PRO said I was presenting a straw man argument in claiming that posing an uncaused causer is more complex and less probable than posing that the universe itself was uncaused. They not only do not understand what a straw man argument is then, But what the scientific data about the Big Bang presents. It makes no claims about what preceded the Big Bang. It only claims that the beginning of the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE began. This does not entail that the UNIVERSE BEGAN. The cause of the Big Bang could simply be that sufficiently powerful thing or process we discussed earlier. The mediation of an uncaused entity is not required. So, Let's assign arbitrary probability claims to all our conditions. Let's say that the first condition is true. The Big Bang had to be caused by something powerful enough to cause it. In probability, This can be represented as 1. For the other conditions let us assign them with a 0. 2% likelihood. 1 is more probable than 1 x 0. 2 x 0. 2 x 0. 2. This equals 0. 008. The proposition that "It is probable that God exists" is shown less likely using simple logic and mathematics.