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

Definition of God: An intelligent entity that created the universe Low probability: A claim that lacks so much evidence that it is considered void Though there is no definite scientific proof for the existence of God, there such a low probability of God's existence that we may well assume that he does not exist. To use the cliched analogy, though someone may claim that there is a giant pink elephant giving Osama bin Laden a piggy back ride while jumping through a hoop of flames to the sound of gospel music on Mercury, there is a low enough probability to assume that that situation is not occurring. My first point, is the clash between the role of religion and the role of science in explaining how the world works. Though religion in early human civilization was used to explain natural phenomenons, upon the advent of the scientific method, humanity has found a credible source for discovering facts. In the many cases we have seen, when the claims of religion and the claims of science has ever clashed, 100% of the time science has won. When it has come to Earth's orbit around the son, the longevity of the Earth, the categorization of species (the Bible claims the bat is a bird in Leviticus), the evolution of species, the shape of the universe, science has unanimously won these battles. The main reason is because the method employed by science, which uses close scrutiny and peer reviewed research before stumbling on a claim. Religion on the other hand, does not use this method and has mostly used old doctrines and traditions to decide the make up of our world. Only religion, with this method that has obviously never worked, claims that there is the existence of God, whereas science using credible methods has never claimed such. Considering science has been 100% right out of the time, and religion wrong 100% of the time, based on religion's record religion is wrong about God as well. My second point, is the logic of "to have a creation, there must be a creator." Theists often use this argument in order to show the logic of God's existence. But if this were true, wouldn't God also be a creation, and therefore need a creator? This makes the existence of God a constant conundrum, something theists are not able to explain nor address. The notion that something can intelligently exist outside of time, outside of space, with omnipotent control over every aspect of our physical world is a long shot. Granted, scientists are still not sure how the universe was created and what "existed" before the Big Bang, but to then place all your bets on this God is not based on any scientific method, but to base it off of traditional values that human beings are often too nostalgic to let go of. The notion of a God that is both a creator and a creation in this respect is a logical fallacy, which also makes his probability of existence faint at best. My third and last point is the theist's argument that life itself is so complex that there must have been a God to create it. But when compared to Darwin's theory of evolution, that life started at incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings to finally adapt to current perfection, this is a more proven, observable, and logical answer. In order to have a God that created us, you would first need to provide the logical argument of how God can both be a creation without a creator with omnipotent power outside of our physical realm, with scientific data to back it up. Of course, this has not been an issue in the scientific community because the scientific community does not find this hypothesis (and yes, it is a hypothesis) credible or observable. Darwin's theory of evolution on the other hand has been tested and observed. The reason why we always need a constant supply of new and improved flu vaccines is because the flu virus has a small enough database in its DNA to change itself. We see this process happening right before our eyes. Scientists have also found that given the right material, and given the state of the Earth when life first began, cells were able to form with some essential amino acids. These amino acids formed together to make a cell, which clumped together to make algae like substance, and so on and so on. Though these steps may seem improbably, given the millions and millions of years, time is able to provide breathing space for life to form. God on the other hand, is hypothesized to have constantly existed and created life on Earth in a condensed amount of time, which provides no observable evidence, no explanation of how that God has that intelligible power, and therefore ceases the probability of God's existence. Of course, though we may be debating this issue, the only place where this issue is not debated is the scientific community, the community that has the most credibility in determining these issues because they provide through the most scrutiny, peer reviews, and objective amendments for their findings. When compared to the only group that advocates the theory of God creating life on Earth, the religious community, it holds no proven facts or credibility. Based on religion's knack for getting facts wrong 100% of the time, God's untempered yet intelligent existence and his compressed timing for life on Earth, God's probability is low enough to assume he does not exist.