The Probability of the Existence of God

I thank RationalMadman for engaging in this argument with me. Let's have fun, hey?1.) Arguments for the Existence of GodI'm not about to bore my opponents, nor our readers, with a hackneyed outline on all of the arguments for the existence of God. To do so would not only be an enormous waste of time, but could very potentially pull me into committing a straw man fallacy. With that said, thus far, I am unfamiliar with any compelling argument for the existence of God, be it a matter of proof or probability. If Pro can offer one, then I will be happy to [attempt to] counter it in a precise and well-documented fashion.2.) A Healthy Dose of SkepticismIt would take a great fool to claim that he/she is 100% certain of anything beyond the Cogito Ergo Sum or certain mathematical truths, but 100% certainty is not necessary for claiming that we have knowledge regarding a certain subject. For example, we cannot acquire 100% certainty with any amount of observation, yet we would all tend to agree that it would take a paranoid schizophrenic to deny the existence of the observable world. All the same, human beings have developed theories in an effort to explain the world, some of which are more heavily based on empiricism, while others are based primarily on mathematical coherence. An example of the former would be the theory of electric generation, which is not only supported by mathematics and observation, but has furthermore been put into practical use (e.g. how else would we be able to have this debate via electronic equipment?). An example of the latter would be the origin of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang), which is empirically supported to a point, but when it comes to what preceded the Big Bang, any astrophysicist worth his/her salt would admit that one mathematically supported guess is as good as the next.So in layman's terms, the exact beginning of the universe remains a scientific anomaly. Indeed, the only ones who claim to actually "know" the initial starting point are theists and deists. While certain theists and deists may admit a certain lack of knowledge over the specifics themselves, they do agree on one point: simply, that at the very beginning, it required an intelligent force in order to thrust the universe into existence. And it is precisely this view that -as far as I can tell- is unsupported by probability.3.) From Skepticism to MetaphysicsSo we have no clear and distinct idea of how this whole mess that we call, "the universe," began. We could claim any number of things: a piece of red phosphorus could have been the catalyst in a meth explosion, a cosmic kitten could have taken a hot leak into the quantum foam that it calls its litter box, etc. At this point, one guess looks as good as any other. So let's explore the possibilities, and work to probabilities from there.I am sure that my opponent and I can agree that the majority of the matter of the universe is inorganic: indeed, WMAP studies estimate that only 4.6% of the universe even consists of atoms [1]. But even within atoms, an infinitesimally small amount of matter can be said to actually be alive. Among those that are alive, a small fraction of those consist of animals; and among animals, we have cnidarians, sponges, [most] mollusks, and Sean Hannity. This effectively eliminates most life out of the realm of intelligence. So when it comes to the very beginning of the universe, doesn't it seem outrageously improbable that it would have began with something so rare and special as an intelligent being?With all the of the matter in the universe considered, it seems that to claim that it began with something intelligent is tantamount to rolling a BAZILLION sided die and placing all of your bets on the number, "7." I don't know what exact number the die would roll to, but I feel that I can safely say that, "7" isn't going to come up.1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...