"more likely to exist than a god"<quoted text>Actually, the concept of god is too vague to even be tested. All that can be tested are specific claims, such as that prayer works. It doesn't. Or that life was created. It wasn't. It evolved.
Speaking of probability, the god hypothesis is the least probable for the competing explanations for the existence of anything. If anything at all exists, something has to be eternal or to have come into existence uncaused.
 One hypothesis has the singularity coming into existence uncaused, and expanding.
 Another has our universe existing eternally, uncaused, and cycling through alternating epochs of expansion and contraction.
 Another posits the existence of a multiverse from which infinite numbers of universes including our bud off. The multiverse need be no more than an amorphous, unconscious blob.
 And then there is the hypothesis that an eternal, infinite, uncaused omnscient, omnipotent, immortal, and perfectly moral sentient life form has always existed.
The last is infinitely more complex than any of the others,complexity that is not needed. A multiverse could be the source of our universe, and at this time, is the leading candidate, since that hypothesis also answers the fine tuning objection.
A multiverse is infinitely more likely to exist than a god. And it's a Christian argument that defeats the god hypothesis, namely, Hoyle's fallacy - the one about 747's being assembled by tornadoes in junkyards being so unlikely as to be considered impossible, and therefore living cells self-assembling (abiogenesis) would be similarly unlikely. But what is a weak, unconscious, impotent and mortal cell compared to a god? Nothing. So how could a god exist uncaused?
Occam's Razor compels us not just to merely drop this hypothesis, but to hurl it with great force and dispatch.
This of course is just your opinion that obviously carriers no weight with us.
Question for you, do you believe in anything that cannot or does not exist in the universes?