Am I? So you can sit there, entirely within your own layer of the multiverse, completely isolated from every other living thing, by your own perceptions, and can come up with no rational opinion, other than that which you've been taught, and your comment is on the wording, of an attempt to convey a rational observation. Ok... lol... still learning my way around here ????????????

It was a poor attempt...

Probability and statistics govern the big bang... laws of physics and science. The aslect of "god" that makes our existence possible, is governed by random occurrence... but in a flat universe there is neither random, nor singular events. If it happens once, then it happens an infinite amount of times... it's the nature of an infinite universe... with infinite time and space at its' disposal, anything and everything is happening right now. My premise is god is sentient, and not, and both, because it is a statistical posdibility... Everything is. The universe is flat.

The universe has an age, it is not in any sense infinite.
Looking backwards, the laws of physics break down before you get to the big bang, so they don't govern the big bang.
Since we do exist in a universe with physical laws, that the laws of logic are based on, such as the law of non contradiction, something cannot be sentient ,and not, and both.

My proof is the negligible probability of our continued existence...

As is your faith in your disbelief. Science dictates that conclusions must be drawn from interpretation of data. Upon that interpretation, the most likely cause is usually accepted. This is recognised as a "theory" and peer reviewed. There is no facts in science. A single accepted misinterpretation becomes a theoretical principle. Based upon the evidence, the big bang is the most likely cause of the creation of the universe. That is our BELIEF. There is no conclusive data. Scientists have faith in their findings, knowing that there is no such thing as a definite measurement, there are always higher and lower increments. That is an example of non sentient god doing its' thing.

Sentience is the capacity to learn, to evolve your thinking, to feel emotion... A computer is not sentient... a sheep is.

@Dreegle [merriam-webster.com] ... But that definition aside, you haven't responded to my actual point that you must define god as a prerequisite to saying such a thing exists.

@DJVJ311 I'm defining "god" as being sentient, not or both. Something created the universe... lets call it "god" (or whatever name you want). There are people that believe in non sentient god. Scientists, realists etc follow the anthropic principle, believe in the random collision of energy sparked the creation of matter, and our universe etc. Then there are people that believe god is just hanging around zapping miracles and finding their car keys. That is their perception, and very much a part of their individual unique life experience, and reality... I'm saying, that there is an equal likelihood that there is both.

@Dreegle And something created the thing that created the thing that created the big bang ad infinitum? If you want to assert as fact that there exists an abstract precursor at the ultimate end of the causal chain, I suppose you can assert that as a hypothesis. Labeling that abstract notion "god" is arbitrary and does not convey half of what the word means in normal conversation, so it seems mislabeled.

Also, the assertion that even an abstract precursor is necessary is not falsifiable claim, so it cannot be proven or disproved and only accepted on faith and is therefore not incontrovertible. Unless you have some experimental or even logical way of approaching a proof for the origin of the universe, the statement is disputable.