It is probable that God exists

Since my argument is based on probability, I will appeal of Occam's Razor to demonstrate God's existence is more probable than God's in existence. Occam's Razor is a principle that urges one to select the simpler hypothesis, or the one that requires least assumptions. My thesis: An omnipotent being created the universe.For this to be true, one has to assume an omnipotent being can exist. Once this assumption has been made, any subsequent effect is possible, for an omnipotent being can act outside the borders of physical and logical laws.The antithesis: The universe was not created by an omnipotent being.Since we don't have a certain explanation for the origin of the universe, this claim has to be supported by different hypothesis, the most common being the Big Bang Theory. The theory itself is based on two assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the isotropic, homogeneous nature of the universe. Nevertheless, The Big Bang does not enter in direct conflict with my thesis and has pretty strong evidence to be supported but it is possible that God created the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang, so I will focus on the assumptions that need to be done to make the universe possible without an omnipotent God. Time is finite. The best way to explain a universe that does not require God is to assume time began with the Big Bang (or at some other point). If we do not make this assumption, we can trace back time in regress to and before the Planck Epoch meaning something had to exist before the Big Bang in order to trigger it. The laws of nature exist outside of time. Since we are assuming time is finite, we cannot talk about an origin of natural laws. Quantum mechanics and quantum gravity are vital if we want consider a universe without God. So we have to assume it is possible for natural laws to exist prior to time (however that makes sense). Thermodynamics can be neglected. If we take into consideration that "energy cannot be created or destroyed", an explanation of the universe from a physical perspective is impossible, so we need to assume energy began to exist in order to trigger the Big Bang. Relativity and M theories are correct. In Hawking' s model of the universe, both of these theories (which are theories, not laws) must be correct, otherwise, the model fails. Furthermore, not only is it necessary for this events to occur in such manner, but absolutely neglecting the intervention of God in some part of the process results quite hard, as was noted by physicist Gerald Schroeder: "The Grand Design breaks the news, bitter to some, that … to create a universe from absolute nothing God is not necessary. All that is needed are the laws of nature. … [That is,] there can have been a big bang creation without the help of God, provided the laws of nature pre-date the universe. Our concept of time begins with the creation of the universe. Therefore if the laws of nature created the universe, these laws must have existed prior to time; that is the laws of nature would be outside of time. What we have then is totally non-physical laws, outside of time, creating a universe. Now that description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe."Apart from these key assumptions, the non-deistic approach to the origin of the universe takes for granted human knowledge up to date is correct, not to mention it requires a strict Anthropic view of the universe and reality. While it is true that several problems arise with the deistic creation of the universe, they are all solved once we accept an omnipotent being to which no laws can be applied. The same is not true for the opposite approach. As we have seen, many major assumptions (some even contradictory) have to be made to fit the universe into a pseudo-physical and non deistic viewpoint. Source: Wikipedia.