It's probable that the God exists

Con:"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."Sure there is. 1 of 2 propositions must be true. Thus...a 50/50 chance either way of "no creator(s)" or "creators(s)".*Con: "If you say there was nothing literally...", which isn't relevant because I don't say that."Then Con has the problem of a regress of infinite causality. 1)If Con claims time did not exist, then Con must show us what burped time into existance. If and when Con presents us a "cause" of time, Con must present us the cause of the cause of time. And so on...infinitely. If time can jump into existance, it has jumped into existance before, and there has never been a first time that time jumped into existance and infinitely. 2)Con must explain to us how time can "still pause", then leap back into motion and infinitely. Con must also explain to us the logic behind believing there was never a first thing or a first event. *Con:"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..."God created time, thus is not ruled by it. I need no explanation for the explanation because God would by definition, be the creator of our reality and not subject to science, biology, physics, time, matter, space, etc. It's like a Sim trying to define the creator of Sim City by the construct of said Sim's virtual world. But Con has the dilemma here. Why? Because Con's answer is void of anyone who created our reality, thus Con must demonstrate an answer for every cause because in our reality everything is given birth to by something else. Everything that moves needs a cause for why it moved in the first place. Even energy whether stored or kinetic, can not do anything on its own without something else.*Con:"It is literally impossible to draw any conclusions about the chances of drawing another blue marble aside from it being possible."And Con cannot deny that a creator...is possible.*Con:"It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in space or time). Therefore, this bears no argumentative weight whatsoever.But what it does show is that the manifestation of life is improbable perhaps speculatively, even impossible, if your model is without a creator.*Con:"because impossible events have a 0% chance of occurring and such events could not occur even within such an infinite universe."If Darwinian means can give us human life, what type of life can it "not create"? And why not?*God, if produced by Darwinian means could simply be the one in infinity that obtained the technology to be God.*Con:"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."Is it improbable? We have God from beyond our reality or Darwinian means simply needing to produce someone who so much technology was passed down to, until they had the technology or knowledge to become God. And if this is the model you assess, in infinite space, time, or both, it has happened already.*Con:"we cannot affirm that this "someone" who made it even exists, unlike the human designer of the car."And why is it illogical to assume the car did not evolve seeing it is a million times less complex than a human being? What if we found it on another planet? Could we still assume it was created if we found no intelligent life on that planet, or is darwinian means a sound argument?*1)God would be the singularity, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.We have objective morality programmed into us and animals do not. Example, I and Con both know that molesting children, having sex with sheep, and walking around nude fondeling ourselves is wrong. 2)It is probable that God exists per laws of infinity, whether by self sufficiency from outside our reality or darwinian means within the construct of infinite history/infinite reality. If there has always been reality, it had no first even and its history is infinite, meaning, it has had infinite chances to produce a being able technologically and/or by the maximum knowledge possible to be God IQ-wise. Within infinity, it has happened already by default within the construct of infinity.3)God has objective being. Why? In the construct of infinity God exists and never has not existed by definition of infinity. Even if one says time did not exist at times in history, this still does not exclude the fact that with infinite attempts, God manifested by default within the construct of infinity. God being the highest possible existance and intelligence. He would be able to stop time per his own desire in Con's model of "stopping time", as we can assess, seeing that it is admitted as a concept by Con. This would explain why God is self existing and self sufficient in my creationist model, for time never existed until He created it and manifested the concept into our reality. Meaning? Time is a meaningless concept to its creator. It's like the boundries of Sim City. They are meaningful to the laws of reality to Sims, but they are meaningless to their creator.