It's probable that the God exists

Big Bang Theory Pro responds to the unobservability of the precedent events of the Big Bang by claiming a 50/50 chance for "Creationism or Atheism", which essentially boils down to whether God exist or not. This is an unfounded conclusion because there is no basis from which to calculate a probability; such would require a source of data from which a probability could be derived. Since no such thing is available, this probability remains inconclusive. Time and Events Pro claims that "before" is not time-dependent, but "history-dependent". While I agree with Pro that "history and time are not the same thing", that doesn't eliminate the problem. History is also time-dependent; history reflects and order of events which necessitates time. Pro then says, "If you say there was nothing literally...", which isn't relevant because I don't say that. As per the above section, no valid conclusion on this matter can be drawn. Infinite Regress This problem exists in all facets of belief, including theism. If a god is claimed to exist without a cause or prior event, then it must be explained why it's the case that this is applicable to said god while not applicable to other entities, such as those that make up the universe (e.g. energy). Without this explanation, the Special Pleading logical fallacy is committed, which is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification [*]. In any case, although this notion appears absurd to us, intuitively, can you demonstrate that this cannot be the case? You can posit that if history spanned infinitely into the past, then we could never have gotten here. In response to this, we would have to be somewhere on that infinite timeline, which is the point in time we are currently experiencing. FERMI Paradox Firstly, this is based on the Drake Equation, which (from Pro's own source) faces criticism that several of its terms are conjectural, the net result being that the error associated with any derived value is very large such that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions [1]. We have but one instance of life to observe, so the generation of a reliable probability is impossible because we have no idea on the multitude of other ways or scenarios in which life could potentially emerge. To put this in perspective, say you draw a single blue marble out of a large bag of marbles of unknown colors. It is literally impossible to draw any conclusions about the chances of drawing another blue marble aside from it being possible (which itself is not unquestionable). Secondly, Pro's own source list a multitude of plausible explanations for this supposed paradox (e.g. It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in space or time) [2]. Therefore, this bears no argumentative weight whatsoever. Ontological Argument Even if given infinite chances, one cannot draw a two of clubs from a Pinochle Deck (only 9 and above are included). In granting an infinite universe (time, space, and matter), it does not follow that every conceivable event (i.e. God's existence) has occurred, because impossible events have a 0% chance of occurring and such events could not occur even within such an infinite universe. In order to affirm the soundness of this argument (and its conclusion), Pro must first show that it's possible for a being such as God to exist. "Nuttin Done It" Pro offers a convoluted response and claims that I am "using strong confirmation bias to see only what Con needs to see to conform to his 'simpler explanation...' " and construct a distorted version of my position to refute, which constitutes a Strawman logical fallacy [*]. My position is not "nothing done it"; but that the assertion that a god is the reason is unfounded and untenable, and that it should be regarded as improbable. Pro provides a bad example; we know that cars only exist as a result of human manufacturing, so of course the reasonable conclusion is that "someone did it". This is not at all equivalent to the universe because (a) we don't know that it was deliberately created and (b) we cannot affirm that this "someone" who made it even exists, unlike the human designer of the car. Atheism Pro states that all people have a collection of interdependent beliefs which, while true, has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, which literally pertains to an individual's stance on one single issue regardless of any apparent correlation between this and other beliefs. Pro remarks that he could have "a lack of belief that there is no God", which is perfectly fine. This logically means that you do no hold the claim "there exists no God" to be true. It doesn't mean that you hold the opposite (and separate) claim to be true, so this indeed reflects something different than a belief that there is a God. To clearly demonstrate, here's a example: Consider a hypothetical jar of jelly beans. Two dichotomous claims can be issued about the how many are in the jar: 1.) There is an even number of Jelly beans in the jar. 2.) There is an odd number of jelly beans in the jar. If someone issues claim (1) to you without sufficient reasons to believe him, you lack belief in the truth of that claim. This does NOT means that you necessarily accept claim (2). While is it logically impossible to accept both claims as true, it is possible to not hold either to be true. So, by merely rejecting claim (1), you lack belief that there is an even number of jelly beans, and could be called an "a-evenist". Muslim Visions This is severely lacking in evidence, specificity, and explanation. In lieu of spelling this out, I will simply challenge Pro's substantially biased/unreliable sources: The first is 'Charisma Magazine': "empowering believers for life in the spirit", the second is merely a religious blog based on a few anecdotal accounts, and the third is an anecdotal testimony on 'Yahoo! Answers'. None of these are reliable sources. Remarks Pro has thus far failed to provide a clear path of reasoning between his scattered and loosely organized arguments and the resolution: the probable existence of God as defined in Round 1, nor has Pro undermined or invalidated any portion of my argument to any degree greater than attacking a fabricated notion of atheism or resorting to Ad Hominem fallacies (e.g. baldly claiming I am biased without even addressing the argument, itself) [*]. This commentary is not at all intended to be condescending, but is instead offered as a constructive criticism to highlight where I perceive Pro's case sorely needs strengthening. Sources [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [*] Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...