It is probable that God exists

Where science ends, God does not begin. The limits of scientific observability are that its instruments can only track the existence of the universe to a singular event, The Big Bang, Some 13. 8 billion years ago. This proposition does not entail that nothing existed before the Big Bang. It does not posit the existence of any sort of god. It only entails that the beginning of the scientifically observable universe began 13. 8 billion years ago. Probability usually has a split definition in academic inquiries. Frequentists define it as the statistical likelihood of something happening given how many times it has happened before. Propensity theorists define it as the likelihood of something happening given the disposition and tendencies of the acting object to behave in a certain way given the situation. Christian apologists can only commence to say that god probably caused the universe with the latter sort of claim. God has to be the kind of abstract agency that causes universes. Yet without knowing the conditions of the universe, The situation, Before the Big Bang no probable reasoning can be given about how god created the universe. Nor do we have evidence of other universes, Which would make it more likely that god was that kind of abstract agency that causes universes. Instead, All the apologist can do is posit the disposition of god as an all-powerful, All-knowing, And all-loving being in order to explain the beginning of the universe. They retreat in ascribing to a disposition to a hypothetical being where all the necessary conditions for causing the universe are met. However, These conditions do not have to be ascribed to a god, An agency, Or entity. Why posit the existence of a god instead of just the conditions we deem necessary for the Big Bang to occur (namely a huge quantity of causal power localised into a singularity? ). There is a complete absence of evidence for god's existence to make a strong inductive claim about god"s existence. The case for god can only commence from a priori argumentation, From logic and not probabilistic reasoning. As soon as an apologist appeals to the latter form of reasoning, They find that the evidence presented allows for a greater number of causes than just the hypothesis that god caused the universe. From the evidence given, It does not follow that god necessarily exists. The existence of god and the attributable of certain qualities of this god is a hypothesis to explain the existence of the universe. What we find from the evidence, However, Is that we can posit several other hypothesised causes of the universe which are just if not even more likely. For instance, We could present the hypothesis that other forms of material and wave-form processes existed prior to the universe but under conditions that scientific instruments cannot observe since the event of the Big Bang was so immense that it destroyed all traces of this prior state. Why aren"t you considering the probability of this being the case? It doesn"t entail positing anything as improbable as a conscious agency prior to the Big Bang. Why not even argue that there are deficiencies in our scientific know-how to explain the Big Bang? Where science ends, God does not begin. The absences in one, Do not entail the presence of the other. Furthermore, If we are to ascribe sentience and consciousness to god, The ability to act and create the universe as a rational agency, This complicates cosmogenic theories and makes the Big Bang even more improbable. It would posit that the conditions were in place prior to the Big Bang for a conscious agency to emerge. This would require a ridiculously detailed equation. God"s existence makes the Big Bang"s occurrence even more improbable and such by Occam"s razor, Should be excluded as a hypothesis for its lack of explanatory power. It is a retreat from serious thought. It is easier to imagine a man-like entity causing the universe than it is to imagine the maths of such an event occurring by physical causes. Given the definition of probability in particular, Your resolution is negated. There is absolutely no probabilistic reasoning that can prove the existence of god. Such reasoning can posit the existence of a plurality of causes which, Whilst they do not exclude god, Do no epistemological work in verifying god's existence.